Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A CASE STUDY OF TEACHERS' AND PRINCIPALS'
PERCEPTIONS OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
Darrell D J Latham
Dissertation submitted as partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the Doctorate in Education, Faculty of Education
University of Tasmania
2004
DECLARATION
I certify that this thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the
award of another degree or diploma in any institute, college or university,
and that to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material
previously published or written by another person, except where due
reference is made in the text of the thesis.
Darrell D J Latham
ABSTRACT
Leadership is recognised as a significant characteristic influencing school effectiveness.
The recent devolution of decision-making responsibility from centralised authorities to
local school-based management has resulted in changes in leadership provision in
schools. Consequently, school restructuring has created new expectations of those who
are in leadership positions to rethink the leadership paradigm, to develop effective and
purposeful leadership, and to promote learning communities based on collaborative and
collegial models. As New Zealand has experienced fourteen years of SBM, useful
insights could be gained regarding the way that teachers and principals perceive school
leadership.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers and principals, in one school
district in New Zealand, perceived school leadership (deputy principal, assistant
principal, senior teacher/management unit holder) in terms of leadership style and
leadership management strategies. As well, the study considered the characteristics of
leadership that teachers and principals considered as important and being given
emphasis in their school. An examination was also made of how teachers perceived their
engagement in school decision-making and whether their perceptions are influenced by
other factors. A case study method was selected involving a survey of teachers and a
survey of principals, semi-structured follow up interviews of teachers, semi-structured
interviews of senior teachers and a document analysis relating to school management
strategies. Results of the study show that the majority of teachers perceive their school
leadership to exhibit characteristics of transformational leadership, and that school
decision-making is characterised by collaborative and cooperative processes.
111
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
To my supervisor, Professor Bill Mulford, I extend my sincere thanks for his
encouragement, expertise and guidance throughout the time of the research study which,
sharpened and focused my thinking and has been greatly appreciated.
To Dr Diana Kendall, my deepest gratitude. Her knowledge, commitment, unfailing
support, encouragement and willingness to assist at all times are the hallmark of a true
teacher and mentor.
My thanks to Dr Lawrie Kendall for his specialist support in and expertise in the data
analysis for the study.
Finally to my wife, Lee and daughters, Claire, Julia and Kimberley, my sincere
appreciation for their encouragement and support.
iv
CONTENTS Page
Declaration
Abstract
Acknowledgements iv
Contents Pages
Chapter One — Background to the Study Introduction 1 School-Based Management 1 School-Based Management in New Zealand 5 The Changing Role of the Principal 7 School leadership 9 Need for the Study 11 Statement of the problem 12 Purpose of the Study 12 Research Questions 12 Assumptions Underpinning the Study 13 Methodology 13 Limitation of the Study 14 Protection of Human Subjects 14 Bias of the Researcher 14 Definition of Terms 15
Summary 16
Chapter Two - Literature Review
Introduction 17 School-Based Management 17
Empowerment of Stakeholders under SBM 21 SBM and School Improvement 26 School Decision-Making 30 School Leadership and School Decision-Making 37
School Leadership 45 Principal Leadership 53 Transformational Leadership 59 Summary 66
Key Points from the Research Literature 69
Chapter Three - Methodology Introduction 70 Seeking Permission to Conduct the study 71
Research Design 71 Definition of the Population 75
(A) Survey of Teachers and Survey of Principals.... 75 (B) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interviews 76 (C) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers... 77
Data Gathering Instruments Selected for the Case Study 77 (A) Survey 77 (B) Interviews 78 (C) Document Analysis 80
Design of the Data Gathering Instruments 82 (A) Survey of Teachers 82 (B) Survey of Principals 86 (C) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interview 86 (D) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers.... 86
Tria ling the Data Gathering Instrument 87 (A) Survey 87 (B) Interviews 88
Administration of Data Gathering Instruments 88 (A) Teachers Survey and Principals Survey 88 (B) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews 89
Data Recording and Data Analysis 90 Validity 91 Reliability / Dependability 93 Triangulation / Cross Validation 93 Summary 94
Chapter Four — Results Introduction 95 Research Question One 95 Characteristics of Leadership in Schools 96
Table 1: Performance Expectations 97 Table 2: Intellectual Stimulation 97 Table 3: School Culture and Climate 98
Table 4: Individualised Support 98 Table 5: Vision and Goals 99
Table 6: Structure 99 Importance and Emphasis of Leadership Characteristics 100
Table 7: Vision and Goals (I/E) 101 Table 8: School Culture and Climate (I/E) 101 Table 9: Intellectual Stimulation (YE) 102 Table10: Performance Expectations (I/E) 102
vi
Discrepant Analysis 102 Table 11: Discrepant Analysis — Group Statistics t-test... 103 Table 12: Discrepant Analysis — t-test 104
Interviews of Teachers 104 Interviews of Senior Teachers 108
Document Analysis 111 Summary of Research Question One 113 Research Question Two 114
Table 13: Decision-Making Index (rank order) 116 Table 14: Decision-Making Index (frequency) 117
Interviews of Senior Teachers 117 Document Analysis 118 Summary of Research question Two 119 Research Question Three 119
Table 15: Gender Teachers and principals 120 Table 16: Qualifications Teachers and Principals 120 Table 17: Age of principals 120 Table 18: Type of School 121
Table 19: Position of Responsibility 121 Table 20: Years in Current School (Teachers) 122 Table 21: Number of Principals (Teachers) 122 Table 22: Years Taught (Teachers) 122 Table 23: Years as a Principal 123 Table 24: Years in Current School (Principal) 123 Table 25: Years Taught (Principal) 123 Table 26: Aspirations for Principalship 123 Table 27: Reasons for Aspiration (Teachers) 124 Table 28: Satisfaction with being a Principal 124 Table 29: Recommend Principalship to others 124
Summary of Research Question Three 125 Post Hoc Tests: Factor Analysis 126 Vision and Goals 127
Tables 30a / 30b: Vision and Goals 128 Intellectual Stimulation 128
Tables 31a /31b: Intellectual Stimulation 129 School Culture and Climate 129
Tables 32a / 32b: School Culture and Climate 130 Performance Expectations 130
Tables 33a / 33b: Performance Expectations 131 Individualised Support 131
Tables 34a /34b Individualised Support 132 Structure 132
Tables 35a /35b. Structure 132 Summary of Chapter Four 133
vii
Chapter Five — Discussion Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction 134 Importance and Emphasis of Characteristics of Leadership 134 Teacher Engagement in Decision-Making 138 Individual Characteristics of Teachers and Principals 141 Recommendations for Future Research 144
References 145
Appendices Appendix A 155
Letter to School Principals 156 Appendix B 157
Information sheet for Survey Participants: Teachers. 158 Information Sheet for Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews: Teachers 159 Statement of Informed Consent: Teachers 160 Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Principals 161
Appendix C 162 Information Sheet for Semi-structured Interviews: Senior Teachers 163 Statement of Informed Consent: Senior Teachers 164
Appendix D 165 Teacher Survey of school Leadership 166
Appendix E 170 Principal Survey of School leadership 171
Appendix F 174 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Schedule: Teachers .. 175
Appendix G 177 Semi-structured Interview Schedule: Senior Teachers ... 178
Appendix H 179 Survey Data Table 27: Vision and Goals (I/E) 180 Table 28: School Culture and Climate (YE) 180 Table 29: Intellectual Stimulation (YE) 181 Table 30: Performance Expectations (YE) 182
Appendix I 182 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Data: Teachers 183
Appendix J 192 Semi-structured Follow-up Interview Data: Senior Teachers 193
viii
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
Introduction
The decentralisation of school decision-making is a global occurrence and one referred
to by a variety of names, all of which have a slightly different emphasis. Most often
decentralisation refers to the devolution of educational decision-making and the
redistribution of power to the local school and community level. School-based
management in New Zealand has required principals and teachers to play an important
role in determining the direction of education for their school communities and this has
involved a change from the school leadership being directive and control orientated
towards an approach considered to be empowering and facilitative. It is timely that these
New Zealand developments in decentralisation be explored.
This chapter will outline the context of this case study of teachers' and principals'
perceptions of school leadership in the decentralised New Zealand education system as
well as its significance, research questions, methodology and definition of terms.
School-Based Management
During the last decade, decentralisation of responsibility for the management of schools
to the local level has been an organisational reform, which has affected many education
systems around the world. Generally, centralised departments of education determine
through a central office the way that schools are managed, and schools had little input
1
into, or control over, these determinations. By moving responsibility for school
management to a local level, the objective was to improve school effectiveness
and efficiency through increased participation of the school community in the
management of the school (David, 1989; Brown, 1995).
Shifting decision—making to local schools has meant redistributing power among
various groups, including parents, teachers and the community, who had a stake in the
quality of education. Teachers, parents, students, and to some extent the school
community, were involved in determining how educational resources and management
structures were to be used in a particular school context (Van Meter, 1994;Wylie, 1994).
The re-allocation of power and authority to stake holders was thought to make schooling
more responsive to the particular needs of local communities as well as using the
knowledge and energy of people at the school and community level. Brown (1990:157)
contended that the decentralisation of decision-making provided a greater degree of
flexibility at the local level and allowed school personnel to "make decisions which may
not have been possible under more centralised management".
During the 1990s, the trend towards restructuring was becoming evident in a number of
countries. In the United States of America, decentralisation reforms occurred in many
states including Kentucky, North Carolina, Texas, California and, in particular, the city
of Chicago (David, 1995:4).
2
Under the 1998 education reform act in England, decentralisation of school decision-
making to the local school site occurred, with financial responsibility being moved from
Local Education Authorities (LEA) to individual schools managed by the school
principal and school trustees, to whom the principal has accountability (Williams,
Harold, Robertson and Southworth, 1997:626). The principal, elected parent
representatives, some community members and staff representatives had responsibility
for administrative decision-making and determined how monies would be spent; and
parental representation became a legal requirement on school governing-bodies along
with LEA representatives.
Similar to other education systems, Australia and New Zealand moved toward a system
of decentralisation where decision-making was devolved to the communities under a
School-Based Management (SBM) model. Phillips (2000: 143) argued that overseas
influences, particularly from the UK, "played a strong role" in the models of SBM
established in Australia and New Zealand. According to Wylie (1997:1) the motivating
factors behind decentralisation in New Zealand focussed on the importance of
improving educational provision, parent and community involvement and financial
accountability.
While there were similar features in the way that decentralisation occurred in different
education systems, Cranston (2002) pointed out that timing seemed to affect the scope
of change. In New Zealand the change was implemented over time. Cranston (2002:2)
described this as a "sequential approach" which he contrasted with the nationwide
3
curriculum change in Australia in 1989 where that country "issued new curricula at the
same time for all subjects".
In Australia, responsibility for education is vested in the individual states and territories
and the degree of decentralisation varies from state / territory government to school
district and school site. However, Mulford, Kendall and Kendall, Bishop and Hogan
(2000:58) pointed out that during the decade of the 1980s decentralisation took place, to
a greater or lesser extent, in all Australian states and territories.
The New Zealand government introduced educational reform policy in 1988 that
changed the way schools were governed. NovIan (1998:7) described this policy as the
"reformation of education administration". Although regional education boards were in
existence, the ultimate decision-making responsibility for education rested with the
government. As school reform was national, all schools were addressing similar issues .
at around the same time; decentralisation was seen to be part of a wider political agenda
including social, cultural and economic reform.
Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:626) claimed that the move toward
decentralisation in New Zealand had more in common with England than Australia; both
England and New Zealand moved from a system whereby responsibility for education
rested with a centralised system through to one where decision-making had been
"delegated to local schools".
4
According to Beare (1991:20) the school-based management model has generally
become the preferred model for the functioning of schools in many countries. When
countries are viewed collectively, and while differences in the implementation of
decentralisation are evident, commonly associated themes become apparent: for
example, the movement of policy decision-making away from educators, political rather
than educational considerations driving the restructuring process and "the economic
imperative" providing a justification for the reforms.
School-Based Management in New Zealand
Traditionally, New Zealand had a system of education with a strongly centralised
administrative and decision-making structure. In the early 1980s, growing concern about
education from some sections of the community who felt that they were disadvantaged,
particularly women and Maoris, was the impetus for a restructuring of this centralised
education system. A government task force was set up to review the education system
and its report contained recommendations for establishing local school decision-making
and local school-management (Task Force to Review Educational Administration,
1988).
In April 1989, a report titled Tomorrow's Schools was published which detailed
government policy for the decentralisation of education administration. In October of
the same year, with the disestablishment of regional education boards, and the
establishment of boards of trustees for schools, the initial phase of the introduction of
local school-based management was completed.
5
Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:627) described change in the New
Zealand education system as "sweeping decentralisation". They considered the change
from a centralised system to a school-based management structure to be a more radical
change than that which occurred in England. Management of schools in England was
undertaken by LEAs so the devolution of responsibility to the school level, in
comparison with New Zealand, was less severe.
Snook (1989:7) pointed out that although New Zealand had school districts before SBM,
these districts operated as middle managers for the central system which retained control
of schools and decision-making about financial management and curriculum. Under
SBM, schools and Boards of Trustees (BOT) had control over finance and management
but responsibility for curriculum was retained by the New Zealand Department of
Education. New Zealand has retained a national curriculum with regular government,
audits every three years undertaken by the Education Review Office of New Zealand.
While educational leadership has long been considered a complex phenomenon; it has
also been recognised that it is the school leader who weaves the threads of what is
happening in a school together (Campbell-Evans 1993:110). However, how teachers and
principals perceive school leadership as a result of the increased decentralisation of
school decision-making has been the focus of only limited research (Kowalski, Reitzug,
McDaniel and Otto 1992:299).
6
The Changing Role of the Principal
In a centralised system, principal leadership within a school generally focussed on
hierarchical structures and isolating decision-making to those who were perceived to
have the power and responsibility. According to Oliva (1993:500) school administration
and educational leadership systems consisted of "top-down, somewhat heroic visions"
where the school leader is referred to "as the man in the principal's office". Teachers
were seen to be isolated from real decision-making within the school and collaborative
leadership styles were not dominant. The principal had the responsibility of the
supervision of staff and, as Olivia (1993:500) pointed out, that supervisory role was a
power role as "the very word supervision implies a superordinate-subordinate
relationship".
Reitzug (1997:325) contended that the bureaucratic perspective of principal leadership
was important with the prevailing attitude being that the school hierarchy was necessary
for organisational efficiency and school improvement depended on the top down
directives of the education system and the principal. The principal's role as hierarchical
head of the school was based on the assumption of the "principal's expertise" which in
part was associated with their position in the hierarchy. Sergiovanni and Starratt
(1993:25) argued that the principal's position was characterised by expertise and the
principal was perceived as having expertise, that is "hierarchy equals expertise; thus,
supervisors know more about everything than do teachers".
7
Alcorn (1993:8) claimed that with the introduction of decentralisation, principals who
had played a significant role in the management of teaching were now required to
develop new skills and become key players in connecting the school to the community
through the school's governing body. Collaborative leadership styles and shared
decision-making procedures were a result of the reforms shifting authority from
centralised offices to schools. Townsend (1994:24) suggested that the move from
management decisions being made by the principal towards team decision-making
comprised of school administrators, teachers, parents, community members, and often
student members, represented a shift from policy making and provided direction to
consultation and collaboration with all interested parties.
Decentralisation required schools to be perceived as communities with the purpose of
promoting and supporting the concept of learning together rather than how learning may
be controlled. Sergiovanni (1992:41) contended that a change for the school principal
from controlling to shared understandings and shared practices has been required, and
he described this change as a shift from a "transactional leadership culture" of "what
gets rewarded gets done" to a "transformational leadership culture" where "what is
rewarding gets done". Sergiovanni pointed out that an outcome of the decentralisation of
school decision-making for the school principal, has been role evolution, with a focus on
mediation rather than controlling and with the objective of establishing a learning
community.
8
With decentralisation the nature of decision-making in schools has changed because
principals have been able to make decisions at a school-based level according to school
needs. Williams, Harold, Robertson and Southworth (1997:630) argued that decision-
making at school-based level "has become more varied and complex". However, they
pointed out that the cost of a greater degree of "freedom to make decisions", has been
countered by a responsibility which places "further demands on principals".
The changing role of the New Zealand principal according to Robertson (1991:142) has
been significant but difficult to quantify in the sense that "nobody knows the things
beyond the call of duty that a principal does". Nevertheless, Robertson makes the point
that principals prefer the relative independence of decentralisation, notwithstanding the
complexities and demands of a decentralised system.
School Leadership
Educational leadership has attracted considerable interest and has been the subject of
much discussion and debate as to how it should be defined and interpreted. Leonard and
Leonard (1999:237) argued that "there have been many attempts to conceptualise
leadership and the role of leaders" but the reality has been that both "continue to defy
explication". They view that "changing organisational environments" have created "new
conceptions of leadership" and that with restructuring "new roles are being created" and
"new frames of reference introduced".
9
However educational leadership is perceived, its role is acknowledged as being of
critical importance in a successful school (Fullan, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1996; Southworth,
1999). Mulford, Silins and Leithwood (2004:4) contended that the leadership role in a
school influences the way a school is managed, which is demonstrated by a leader's
"pivotal role in effective schools". The role evolution of the school leader, has meant
that school leaders have been required to make sense of new expectations, of managing
new forms of partnerships and being involved in change processes that, from an
educational perspective, would be seen as characteristics of good schools and effective
leadership.
Wallace (2002:167) contended that the principal occupies an influential position in
school management but the principal in a transformational, shared leadership context, is
one of a group of leaders that is, "principals are key, but not exclusive leaders and
managers". The role of the principal has changed from a "formal leader" to the concept
of leadership as a "distributed phenomenon of joint working".
With SBM then, school leadership may have changed in style and complexity from a
single leader as the principal, exhibiting a transactional style of leadership, to shared
leadership and transformational democratic leadership style. The impact of this broader
understanding of school leadership within the school community is likely to affect all
aspects of school organisation.
10
Need for the Study
In 1989 education reforms were introduced, known as Tomorrows Schools, which
changed substantially the nature of school leadership in New Zealand. Fourteen years
on, limited research has been undertaken regarding the effectiveness of school-based
management and the role of leadership in such management, in New Zealand. Wylie
(1999) investigated the impact of these reforms for primary and intermediate schools
and key findings from her research relate to funding and staffing, curriculum and
professional development, boards of trustees and parental involvement and school
competition. There is therefore a need to investigate the way that teachers and principals
now perceive school leadership in the New Zealand context.
Many countries around the world, like New Zealand, have introduced organisational
reforms related to school-based management. School-based management reforms have
meant changes which have implications for teachers and principals, particularly in the
context of school leadership and how leadership is perceived.
Research concerning school leadership has focussed on the role of the principal and, to a
lesser extent, the way school professionals view the role of the principal. The
significance of this study is that the focus is upon the broader concept of school
leadership, which includes the principal but the principal is not necessarily the main
focus of leadership. Results from this study could provide valuable information
concerning a more encompassing concept of school leadership.
11
School-based management has represented a significant reform agenda for New Zealand
schools and a research study at this time that investigates teachers' and principals'
perceptions of school leadership should provide a greater understanding of the
leadership process for those interested in ongoing school improvement.
Statement of the Problem
How do teachers and principals in a well-established system of school-based
management perceive school leadership?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific
region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)
perceived school leadership, in terms of leadership style and leadership management strategies.
Research Questions
The three research questions that were selected for the study were as follows:
Research Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and
principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?
Research Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school
decision-making processes?
Research Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school
leadership affected by other factors such as gender, qualifications, type of
school, experience, age, aspiration and satisfaction?
12
Assumptions Underpinning the Study
Four assumptions underpinned the study:
Assumption One: Leadership has identifiable characteristics.
Assumption Two: School-based management is primarily a participative
process.
Assumption Three: Teachers have the professional understanding to make judgments
about leadership functions in a school.
Assumption Four: Principals have the professional understanding to make judgments
about leadership functions in a school.
Methodology
A case study methodology involving a multi-method data gathering approach was
selected for the study. The Otago region of New Zealand is a clearly defined separate
system within the wider New Zealand education system. A case study method is useful
for research that is exploratory in nature and occurs in a natural setting; however, a case
study is a study of an identifiable separate entity, which Burns (1997:364) defined as a
"bounded system". The Otago region fits the definition of a "bounded system" and is
therefore appropriate for a case study approach.
Data gathering instruments selected for the study consisted of surveys, semi-structured
follow-up interviews, semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In the Otago
region, a survey of the population of 500 teachers and 40 principals was conducted. The
survey of teachers and principals was designed to find out how they perceived school
13
leadership and school decision-making. Semi-structured follow-up interviews of a
random sample of approximately 10% of teachers participating in the survey was then
conducted. The purpose of these interviews was to clarify and expand on the results of
the survey of teachers. Four schools within the case study region were randomly
selected for further data gathering involving document analysis and semi-structured
interviews of senior teachers. Data gathering from the four schools was intended to
verify results from the surveys and interviews with teachers.
The data analysis involved survey frequency counts, chi-square and factor analysis. The
semi-structured follow-up interviews and semi-structured interviews involved
identification, analysis and categorisation of data.
Limitation of the Study
This study was conducted in 40 schools in the Otago region of New Zealand and results
may not be generalisable to other school districts in New Zealand.
Protection of Human Subjects
A standard ethics clearance for the study of human subjects was obtained from the
Southern Tasmania Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee.
Bias of the Researcher
The researcher has a key role in the provision of professional development to schools
throughout the Otago region in which the teachers and principals are working.
14
The researcher acknowledges and accepts that there is a risk of bias with the researcher
conducting the interviews with teachers. However, the value of ensuring consistency in
the conduct of the interview, by having the researcher conduct the interview, was
considered alongside the potential for bias with the researcher conducting the interview.
As the semi-structured interview sought information from teachers related to the results
of the survey, consistency in interview preparation was critical in eliciting responses,
and the researcher decided to conduct the interview mindful of a risk of bias.
Definition of Terms
BOT Board of Trustees.
Contributing School A School for children from year one (5 years of age) to
year six (11 years of age) feeding in to intermediate
schools or Colleges.
Decentralisation The devolution of decision-making responsibility from
centralised authorities to the local school level.
D-MI Decision-making Index.
Intermediate School A school for children from year seven to year eight.
LEA Local Education Authority.
OL Organisational Learning.
Primary School A school for children from year one (5 years of age) to
year eight (12 years of age) in the New Zealand
education system.
SBM School based-management.
15
Senior Teacher A teacher who holds a position of responsibility within
the school.
Summary
Chapter one has outlined the background to the study, the need for the study, the
statement of the problem and the research questions. This chapter also described the
assumptions underpinning the study, the methodology, limitations, protection of human
subjects, bias of the researcher and definition of terms.
In the chapters that follow, this thesis is organised according to the following structure.
Chapter two describes the relevant research literature from which the study has
developed. Chapter three presents the research framework for the study. Chapter four
presents the data analysis of the different research phases of the study. Chapter five .
provides a discussion of the findings, conclusions and recommendations for further
research.
16
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Over the last fifteen years, New Zealand schools have undergone considerable change as
the devolution of responsibility towards school-based management (SBM) has meant
changes to the way that schools are organised and decisions are made. Leadership in
schools has changed also, with decision-making being increasingly shared within the
school. Principal as leader has broadened to school leadership and shared decision-
making.
This chapter will review the research literature pertinent to SBM, school leadership and
school decision-making. It will be organised under the following headings: school-based
management; empowerment of stakeholders under SBM; SBM and school
improvement; school decision-making; school leadership and school decision-making;
school leadership; principal leadership; and, transformational leadership.
School-Based Management
Research concerning the impact of SBM has focussed on the role and responsibilities of
the principal, school level autonomy and the participation and empowerment of the
stake-holders. Decisions are made by the people who have to implement them, and
processes for decision-making should be participatory and democratic. These processes
17
alter the educational power structure and the degree of influence which teachers and
parents have over their school.
A study by Matranga, Horner, Hill and Peltier, (1993) in Nevada USA, was undertaken
to examine the extent to which principals perceived themselves implementing SBM, and
the degree of support given to SBM by superintendents and school board personnel. A
survey of Likert-scale items was administered to all 365 school principals with a
response rate of 43%. Results showed that a majority of principals (70.8%) reported
receiving support from superintendents but only little more than a half (56%) received
support from boards of trustees. Just over half of the principals indicated that they had
implemented aspects associated with SBM. The researchers reported that school boards
and superintendents were largely supportive of the implementation of SBM, however,
they do not account for the reported difference between the degree of support from
school boards compared with the degree of support from superintendents.
As the target of the Matranga et al. (1993) survey were principals, the researchers
expressed concern at what they considered to be a "low response rate," which they
suggested may have been due to regional differences in the state, as well as differences
in the level of interest in the implementation of SBM. The researchers concluded that
where SBM was supported by school boards and superintendents, principals and
teachers were more readily involved in the transition towards SBM.
18
The purpose of a case study by O'Donoghue and O'Brien (1995:413) undertaken in
Western Australia was to investigate the involvement of parents in school-decision
making under a restructured education system. Four primary schools were selected
within a district considered to represent a wide variety of perspectives. A purposive
sampling strategy was used in the selection of teachers for interview, in order to access
as wide a variety of perspectives as possible. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were
undertaken with groups of teachers who were asked questions about their understanding
of the changes relating to parental involvement in schools. As themes arose from
interview data, these themes were further investigated with the teachers. Teachers'
responses were audio-recorded, transcribed and referred back to the teachers, changed as
required, until the account of their shared experiences was acceptable to them.
Three themes concerning teachers perceptions of parental involvement in school
decision-making resulted from the O'Donoghue and Obrien (1995) data analysis. First,
the teachers perceived that parental involvement in school decision-making was being
pursued by policy makers without due regard to the impact on them. Second, teachers
felt that issues raised by parents received a higher priority status than their own
concerns. Third, parental involvement affected teachers' perception of their own role in
curriculum decision-making matters.
The researchers concluded that while schools were in the initial phase of the
restructuring process, the end result might present major changes in the roles of teacher
and parent involvement in schools. O'Donoghue and OBrien claimed that the way
19
teachers viewed change could affect their willingness to adopt change, and in
introducing change "the world of people most closely involved must first be
understood" (p.413).
A study by Dee, Henkin and Pell (2002:41) examined the levels of perceived support for
innovation among public elementary school teachers in a large, mixed ethnic, urban
school district in the southeastern United States, that had adopted SBM. A survey was
sent to all 517 fulltime teachers from 11 randomly selected elementary schools (5%
sample) that utilised SBM and the response rate was 57.1%. Respondents completed the
Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (SSSI); a 61 item self report instrument with a
six-scale Likert-type response, ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Six
traditional and two innovative schools were identified through examination of the school
mission statements and it was found that respondents from the innovative schools scored;
significantly higher on the SSSI than those from traditional schools.
Respondents in the Dee et al. (2002) study also completed measures of "communication,
openness, work autonomy, and formalisation". Mean scores from SSSI mean scores
indicated that respondents perceived their schools as supportive of innovation. There
were no significant differences found for the variables of gender, age, education, years
in the profession and years in their current position. However, perceptions of support for
innovation were found to vary among the schools participating in the study. The
researchers reported finding significant and positive associations between perceived
20
support for innovation and "communication, openness, formalisation, and autonomy"
(P.41).
Results from the Dee et al. (2002) study show that teachers who perceived that there was
support for innovation in their school also reported that the school had clearly defined
responsibilities, open communication and discretion in terms of classroom teaching
programmes. On the other hand, teachers who reported unclear boundaries, inhibited
communication, limited interaction with their colleagues and restraints on the content of
their teaching perceived their school as less likely to support innovation. The researchers
contended that school leaders should be attentive to the requirements for innovative
activities because teachers' perceptions of support for innovation are especially
important in SBM. The attentiveness of a leader to the dimensions of school
organisation that support innovation may determine the extent to which schools are
successful.
Empowerment of Stakeholders under SBM
One of the main aims of SBM is widely believed to be the empowerment of the
stakeholders and the creation of collaborative and shared, democratic decision-making
cultures.
The purpose of a study by Rhinehart, Short and Johnson (1997) was to investigate the
effects of mandated SBM on teachers' perceptions of empowerment and conflict. The
study was conducted in two southeastern states prior to the introduction of SBM in one
21
state (A) and in a second state (B) after the establishment of SBM. Fifty public schools
from State A were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. In State B, two
management structures existed: non-SBM and SBM. The schools were stratified
according to their management structures and 50 schools were randomly selected from
each of the two categories of SBM and non-SBM. In all, three categories of schools
existed: State A non- SBM, State B non-SBM, and State B-SBM.
Data collection instruments used in the Rhinehart et al. (1997) study were the School
Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) and Rahim Organisational Inventory (ROCI-I).
The SPES was used to measure teachers perceptions of empowerment and decision-
making by means of 38 items on a five point Likert-scale. The ROCI-I was designed to
measure conflict of individuals within a school by means of 21 items on a Likert-scale.
In State A, non-SBM: category, 585 teachers from 44 of the 50 schools in the state, ..
returned instruments. In State B, SBM category, 461 teachers from 40 SBM schools in
the state, and in state B, non-SBM category, 294 teachers from 28 non-SBM schools,
returned instruments.
A discriminate analysis was undertaken of the SPES and ROCI-I Data, and findings
indicated that teachers in State B (SBM schools) perceived more involvement in
decision-making and more autonomy in their schools than teachers in State A (non-
SBM schools). In state B, teachers in the non-SBM schools perceived increased
professional growth, autonomy and self efficacy, and less interpersonal conflict. The
22
researchers indicated that submitting the data to a discriminate analysis exposed two
significant Factors. The first factor (state structure) separated teachers in the reform state
from the comparison state, and the second factor (governance structure) separated
teachers in SBM from those in the non-SBM group.
Rhinehart et al. (1997:84) indicated that the findings presented an "interesting
interpretation" as teachers in the non-SBM schools perceived more empowerment than
teachers in the SBM schools and they suggested that "teacher participation may be as
important, if not more important than regulatory beliefs". Rhinehart, Short and Johnson
(1997:84) concluded that the findings suggested that it may not be necessary to "initiate
new governance structures" to shift power for decision-making, but rather, "to develop
plans that allowed beliefs to guide the restructuring process".
A case study in three schools in Canada by Delaney (1997) examined principals' and .
teachers' perceptions as to whether SBM resulted in school improvement. The
researcher spent four weeks in each school (an elementary school, a junior high school
and a senior high school) in the Edmonton school district, and conducted observations
and structured interviews with principals and teachers.
Data analysis showed that the principal's leadership is significant in that, the teachers
considered that the role the school principal played was of critical importance in school
improvement under SBM. Further, shared decision-making, delegation of authority and
23
teacher empowerment were important factors in the relationship between SBM and
school improvement.
The purpose of a study by Beck and Murphy (1998) was to investigate how SBM
worked in a school that was perceived as being successful. An elementary school with a
student population of over 1100 students and located in a low socio-economic area of
Los Angeles was selected as a successful SBM site as part of a reform programme
known as Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now (LEARN). Schools
become affiliated with LEARN only if 75% of all stakeholders voted to join the reform
effort and by doing so they indicated their willingness to work collaboratively.
Beck and Murphy (1998:363) spent three days a week during a school year undertaking
classroom observation, attending parent, faculty, teacher professional development
meetings and conducting semi-structured formal interviews with leaders, teachers,
students and parents. Document analysis was undertaken to determine the progress made
since the introduction of LEARN in 1992.
Data was analysed through the constant comparative method and researchers identified
evidence of "powerful student learning", widespread transformation of teaching,
increased levels of parental involvement and indications of high levels of satisfaction
from students, parents and teachers. School-based management assisted this
transformation in four ways. First, it enabled many changes in a short duration. Second,
LEARN schools have discretion over a wide range of administration procedures. Third,
24
the reform required and encouraged the involvement of all stakeholders in the decision-
making process and, fourth, SBM provided a greater degree of autonomy which had
been a positive factor for those who previously had felt bound by controls. The
researchers concluded that by developing the right conditions in schools it is then
possible to develop structural reform initiatives.
The purpose of a study undertaken by Henkin, Cistone and Dee (2000), was to
investigate teamwork and collaboration in a large city district in the South Eastern
United States where schools have implemented SBM. All 300 principals in the school
district were invited to participate in the study and the response rate was 34.3%.
Respondents completed an Organisational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI),
consisting of 29-items that provided self-reports of behaviour and strategies used to
define, participate in and manage conflict. The descriptors in the items ranged from
always to never. The profile of the respondents reflected the gender and racial mix
consistent with school district records, with half the principals from elementary schools
and the other half showing a balance between middle and senior high school principals.
Most respondents were female, in their 40s or 50s.
Results showed that high levels of group involvement increased the probability that
principals will manage issues of conflict through collaboration and decrease the use of
controlling behaviours. Principals appeared to be more inclined to utilise a consultative
approach to conflict management when teachers were involved in and appeared to be
satisfied with SBM.
25
Henkin, Cistone and Dee (2000:146) concluded that approaches towards conflict
management, which were solution-oriented and involved collaborative problem-
solving, were preferred by principals. They considered that these approaches may work
best "where principals serve in mediative roles and emphasise solution-finding through
a consensual, cooperative process".
SBM and School Improvement
The overall research on the effects of SBM suggests that it is complex and difficult to
accurately assess the contribution of SBM as its relates to school improvements and the
quality of learning outcomes. However, there are a number of research studies in the
area.
Robertson and Briggs (1998: 30) undertook a case study to investigate the results from
the adoption of a SBM approach. Twenty four schools consisting of two elementary, .
two middle / junior high and two high schools in each of four North American school
districts were invited to participate in the study. Schools were selected on the basis that
they had been involved in SBM for a period of three years. Three researchers visited
each school for a one-week period to conduct interviews. Interview questions related to
the implementation of SBM, the extent of positive changes in decision-making, school
strategies and operations, school culture, staff behaviour, and school quality.
Teachers and principals at each of the schools were required to complete a survey to
determine their satisfaction relating to elements of SBM. Two open-ended questions in
26
the survey investigated barriers related to SBM at their school. Information collected at
both the school and district level related to school and student performance, and mission
and goals. A separate case study was written for each school at which they conducted
interviews.
Each case study underwent analysis using coding to assess the amount of change
occurring following the adoption of SBM. Sixteen of the schools were implementing
effective decision-making processes but the same level of success did not carry over into
"the arena of strategic and operational changes" (p.44). Positive cultures were found in
13 of the schools.
Results indicated that changes in governance structures are supported by effective
decision-making practices and that the link between strategic changes and effective
school cultures is ambiguous. Robertson and Briggs (1998:55) concluded from their
study that school improvement occurs through a process of change. School based-
management "seems to have considerable potential as a mechanism through which
school improvement can occur".
Wylie (1999:3) investigated the ten-year impact of the 1988 SBM reforms in New
Zealand, in a series of five studies conducted from 1989 to 1996. Three hundred and
fifty schools participated as part of a stratified random sample of schools. Principals at
these schools were sent surveys and at each school the researchers undertook random
sampling of two trustees and one to three teachers depending on the school size. A
27
random parent sample was also taken from 33 schools. A survey response rate for
principals of 262 of the 350 schools (75%) was achieved, while 376 of 698 trustees
(54%), 889 of 1745 of parents (51%) and 396 of 749 teachers (51%) also responded.
As the aim of Wylie's research was to provide a comprehensive picture of the reforms
and their impact at school level, the surveys were lengthy and comprehensive. Survey
questions were in the form of closed and open questions and cross-tabulation was
undertaken, and results were tested for significance using chi-square analysis.
Wylie (1999:20) identified that the significant changes involved the development of new
forms of partnership between school professionals and boards of trustees working for
the benefit of the students. She also noted that boards reflected a better representation of
parents and that the parent satisfaction rating remained high. Pride and enjoyment in
student achievement was outweighing the workloads related to making SBM work. A
commitment towards professional development as well as changing focus towards
school development processes was noted. Wylie concluded that while schools have a
greater degree of freedom with decision-making, she was less certain about the affect on
students, "it is hard to say if student achievement as a whole has benefited from the shift
to school self-management".
Data from a large study conducted in Tasmania in 1994 by Mulford and Hogan was
analysed by Mulford, Kendall and Kendall (2003), using causal / comparative
methodology. A survey was designed to find out how school personnel perceived the
28
implementation of SBM in government schools in Tasmania. The survey was
administered to teachers, principals, parents and school council representatives with a
response rate from teachers of 57 % representing 77 % of state government schools.
The survey consisted of Likert-scale and open-ended questions. The results indicated
that there were differing perceptions as to the extent of the adoption of SBM. The
majority of primary school principals (65.8%) indicated that it had been adopted to a
"significant extent" compared with 44.4%of secondary school principals and 48.9% of
primary school teachers.
The researchers noted that similar to other countries the introduction of SBM to
Tasmania was accompanied by the belief that there would be an overall improvement in
educational processes. Results indicated that increased commitment was not matched by
involvement in democratic processes, neither did it translate to better learning results in
schools.
The researchers concluded that SBM was significant in its impact but questioned as to
whether that impact was in the right areas in that: in that, the evidence suggested that
while the principals were enthusiastic supporters of SBM, consensus and consultative
processes were not moving beyond the principal. The researchers noted a weakness of
the causal / comparative methodology as being the inability to control variables. On the
other hand inferences drawn as a result of this approach were considered a strength as
they were made under typical circumstances.
29
Educational decentralisation has been recognised by researchers as an organisational
change that has occurred as part of a much wider agenda of reforms. Key features of the
research related to SBM focus on the importance of the participation and the
empowerment of the stakeholders, the development of collaborative decision-making
cultures and the dispersion of power beyond the principal. As a mechanism for bringing
about school improvement SBM has potential particularly where schools have used their
authority to introduce changes that directly affect teaching and learning. However this is
often not the case and the research suggesting a strong connection between SBM and
improved student outcomes is not encouraging.
School Decision-Making
School reform initiatives such as SBM have advocated a greater degree of involvement
by teachers in school governance as a means of fostering change within schools. The
rationale for the increased involvement of teachers in decision-making has been that
enduring educational change and innovation is more likely to occur with the support of
teachers.
Duke and Gansneder (1990) investigated teachers' perceptions of actual and desired
levels of involvement in school decision-making. The data for this study was collected
in 1984, as part of a national study known as the "Good School Project of 100 American
schools". Members of 43 chapters across the country identified a non-random set of
schools in their area that they believed were good schools. Data was collected by survey
30
from 3000 principals, teachers and students in 100 schools. The study focussed on
teachers' perceptions of actual and desired involvement in school decision-making and
of school leadership. The research was undertaken in elementary and secondary schools
but the study report did not provide data to indicate the actual numbers of teachers
involved at the respective school levels.
Teachers were asked to respond to Likert-scale questions to indicate their involvement
in a range of ten types of decision-making relating to discipline, instruction, students,
performance, and staff selection. Factor analyses were conducted for actual
involvement, desired involvement and the discrepancy between the two. Researchers
identified 12 items from the survey that indicated how teachers perceived their principal.
These items were known as the teachers' orientation to school leadership and included
items related to: trust, encouragement, collaboration, cooperation, representation and .
support.
Results indicated that teachers in high schools were of equal or lower likelihood to be
involved in classroom decision-making compared to elementary school teachers; but,
teachers in high schools were more likely to be involved in instructional or
administrative decision-making. Overall, neither group was well represented in
administrative decision-making. The percentage of teachers in both groups, whose level
of actual involvement matched their desired level of involvement, decreased as the
decisions became more managerial; however, for every type of decision more
31
elementary teachers than high school teachers were involved at a level they felt
appropriate.
The researchers refined the survey instrument by developing scales for actual and
desired involvement in two types of decisions, "technical" and "managerial" as well as
developing a scale to measure "teacher orientation to school leadership". This was done
by factor analysis to select the sub-scales and by conducting tests of reliability.
Results showed that teachers who were more involved in either managerial or technical
decisions were more likely to think that they should be and the converse also applied.
For both types of decision-making, deprivation is related to the actual level of
involvement. Those teachers who felt more positively about the principal reported
higher levels of involvement in management and technical decisions, and exhibited less Ls
decision-making deprivation. The researchers contended that their study shows that
where teachers' perceptions of school leadership are positive, teachers are less likely to
desire higher levels of involvement in managerial decision-making and may focus their
energies on technical decisions.
Rice and Schneider (1994) examined teachers' involvement in school decision-making
processes and their job satisfaction, and sought to determine whether or not changes had
occurred during the period in which there had been a considerable focus on teachers'
involvement in decision-making.
32
The population consisted of teachers in public middle schools and junior high schools in
Wisconsin. Twenty-two rural, suburban and urban schools ranging from 375 to 1150
pupils schools participated in the study and twelve teachers, randomly selected from
each of the schools, completed surveys. Two hundred and sixty four teachers were
selected and 261 completed surveys giving a response rate of 98%.
Part one of the study included a Decision Involvement Analysis Questionnaire involving
four questions relating to 20 decision issues. A four-point likert-scale was used for each
question and the decision condition of all respondents regarding their actual and desired
level of involvement was calculated. Part two of the study included a job satisfaction
survey containing 27 items with nine scales.
Results from Rice and Schneider (1994:51) identified a characteristic of the decision- 2
making process which they labelled as a "general decision condition of deprivation".
Teachers reported higher levels of deprivation in decisions related to managerial and
school-wide issues than in technical and instructional issues. Researchers found that a
relationship existed between the level of decision involvement and job satisfaction, in
that low level of perceived involvement equated to a low level of job satisfaction.
The study showed that although increases in involvement in decision-making were
found, teachers desired more involvement in decision-making. Higher levels of
involvement related to increased job satisfaction and teachers perceived levels of
influence. The researchers contended that the findings are of concern, in that, although
33
teachers are more involved in decision-making than in the past, attention needs to be
given to the type of decision-making not just the degree of participation in decision-
making.
Heck and Brandon (1995:10) reported two studies designed to investigate how the
reform of school decision-making responsibilities affects teachers' involvement and
leadership. They contended that there are different approaches to investigating school
reform, one of which is to focus on themes such as 'vision, empowerment participation
and leadership' which relates, in their view, to the 'dynamics of the change process'.
Schools participating in the studies were selected from a state-funded reform effort
programme in the United States, in which schools were encouraged to use school
decision-making procedures.
Two research questions provided the focus for the studies. First, to what extent is
teachers' agreement with the selection of school needs affected by their participation in
decision-making and second, to what extent does teachers expertise affect their
participation in decision-making about school needs?
In the first study, 151 teachers in nine elementary schools returned surveys providing a
response rate of 55%. In the second study, 212 teachers in four elementary schools
returned surveys providing a response rate of 76%. On-site interviews were conducted
with teachers with leadership responsibilities. Teachers in the first study responded to a
survey containing likert-scale responses about their involvement in decision-making
34
related to school improvement. Teachers in the second study completed a similar survey,
however the emphasis was on their specific expertise in areas related to schooling and
the extent of their participation in decision-making processes.
The results of the interviews with teachers across both studies showed that in 50% of
cases decisions were made by consensus. Results of the survey responses indicated that
teachers' involvement in identifying school needs was the strongest predictor of their
agreement with the identified need; and that teacher expertise had the greatest direct
effect on their involvement in decision-making. In both of the studies, Heck and
Brandon (1995:12) found that teacher leadership was linked to higher levels of
participation in decision-making processes.
Heck and Brandon (1995:14) contended that involvement by teachers in decision-
making lessens resistance to change and that school improvement requires the
involvement and empowerment of school personnel in areas in which they have
expertise and an interest in the outcome.
A longitudinal five-year study was conducted by Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-
Conyers (1996) which examined relationships between participative decision-making,
instructional improvement and student learning in K -8 schools in a United States
Midwestern metropolitan school district, between 1990 and 1994. In order to facilitate
teachers' participation in decision-making, site councils were established in each school.
The researcher surveyed teachers at intervals of first year, third year and fifth year of the
35
five-year study period of the establishment of site councils. Surveys were distributed at
staff meetings and by mail to all teaching staff in spring 1990, 1992, and 1994. The
survey was designed to find out if teachers' perceptions of involvement in decision-
making had changed over the five-year period. The survey was constructed according to
an analytical model consisting of six elements as follows: teachers' perceptions of
participative decision-making, autonomy, accountability, organisational learning,
instructional improvement and student outcomes. Data was collected from observation
of the site councils and was used to validate the survey results relating to participative
decision-making.
Three stages of data analysis were undertaken. First, school level means and standard
deviations were calculated for each measure of the analytical model for the first and last
years in which they were obtained. Second, change scores were calculated relating to
"accountability", "autonomy" and "organisational learning" and correlational analysis
was undertaken.
Results revealed a large decline in teachers' perception of "individual autonomy" across
schools in the district, but a large increase in their perception of accountability. The
researchers claimed that their results support the use of the analytical model for
analysing the instructional outcomes of participative decision-making; and they
contented that teacher participation in school-based decision-making is related
positively to instructional improvement and student outcomes.
36
Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-Conyers (1996:193-194) concluded with two findings:
first, the relationship between organisational change mechanisms and instructional
improvement "are generally weaker" than the relationship of these mechanisms to
student outcomes. Second, participative decision-making can have a "negative as well as
a positive relationship" to student learning, in that some schools with "participative and
instructionally orientated councils" showed gains in scores on standardised tests.
Schools with the "least participative, non-instructionally orientated councils" revealed a
decline in test scores.
School Leadership and School Decision-Making
Research on successful school decision-making highlights the important role of the
principal and school leaders. More broadly, research on successful school reform
initiatives highlights the importance of decision-making processes being dispersed
beyond the principal and boards of trustees to other decision—making groups.
Blase and Blase (1999) investigated the relationship between the principals' perspective
of shared governance and the challenge of becoming involved in collaborative decision-
making. Eighteen principals identified as "exemplary principals", affiliated with the
"League of Professional Schools in the State of Georgia", were selected for the study. A
purpose of the "League of Professional Schools" was to create democratic decision-
making structures to promote teacher, parent and student involvement in school matters.
Nine principals were selected for participation in the study based on reports of the
principal's "success", "democratic approaches to school leadership" and "shared
37
governance in public schools". The sample consisted of four males and five females,
representing three elementary, four middle schools and two high schools, and a mix of
rural, suburban and urban schools, and diverse ethnic groupings.
Data was collected in accordance with symbolic interaction theory and involved
interviews with the nine principals in their schools. Principals provided background
information about themselves and their schools. The interviews were open-ended and
follow-up discussion was undertaken to clarify points. Interviews were audio-taped,
reviewed and transcribed and the researcher consulted with each principal as to the
accuracy of the transcript. Data analysis was undertaken according to the guidelines for
grounded theory and constant comparative analysis and the data was analysed to
determine emergent categories and themes that were characteristic of the database.
Results reported by Blase and Blase (1999:484) indicated that the work of principals
identified as exemplary "shared-governance principals" is characterised by becoming
involved, "letting go of power", " supportive processes", and "supportive structures".
According to the researchers, shared governance principals were not dominating and did
not have a "preoccupation with self', were more likely to work with others as equals,
develop trust and were highly collaborative.
The researchers claimed that "prospective and practicing principals" need to reflect on
their readiness to become involved in a shared leadership role and in particular, they
should consider as to whether their beliefs are consistent with those perceived by
38
shared-governance principals. However, the researchers acknowledged that the schools
selected for this study already experienced high levels of school collaboration and that
these results might not occur as readily in schools with top-down management styles.
Brown, Boyle and Boyle (1999) sought to establish if delegation of whole school
decision-making involved and empowered the middle management level in the school.
They investigated alternative models of management for decision-making, and sought to
identify commonalities amongst middle managers regarding their current models. Their
research was undertaken from a random sample of 21 secondary schools in the north
west of England in schools located across a range of urban areas with a catchment
including a mix of public and private dwellings.
Semi-structured interviews schedules were developed, one for the middle management
teacher and one for the headteacher. Interviews were conducted with the headteachers
which involved gathering details related to their management models and their views of
the decision-making roles of middle management. Interviews were conducted with the
middle management teachers to investigate their perceptions of the decision-making
model currently operating in each of the schools. Data collection and coding procedures
were used to develop categories and themes from the data, which was coded according
to grounded theory guidelines.
Three categories of schools emerged from the data. The first category was schools
which showed no evidence of shared decision-making. The second category was schools
39
which demonstrated movement towards middle management access to whole school •
decision-making and the third category was schools which, were fully operating a
shared decision-making model. Analysis of the interview data showed that each of the
three categories had schools in the range of 500 to 1000 or more pupils and that
decision-making models were not linked to school size.
Schools, which emerged as being those with a commitment to collaboration, were those
where the middle management was actively involved in whole-school decision-making
and where the headteacher shared this perception. Schools which demonstrated less
frequent opportunities for collaboration were those where the middle management
believed that the headteachers perceived them as having a whole-school management
and policy decision-making role. Middle management also had positive perceptions of
the management model related to decision-making. Schools that exhibited little
collaboration, cooperation or consultation between middle managers on whole school
decision-making exhibited a considerable gap between the headteacher and themselves
in decision-making.
The researchers contended that the evidence from their study indicated that middle
management required more involvement in school decision-making and sought a
distributed leadership model. They contended that collegial models are the dominant
paradigm but acknowledged difficulties of attainability and suggested further research.
Brown, Boyle and Boyle (1999:321) indicated that the number of headteachers
interviewed (12) was small when compared to the number of managers in the study
40
(which was not reported) and that the conclusions should be viewed as "suggestive
rather than definitive in nature".
The purpose of a comparative study by Gelzheiser, Meyers and Meyers (2001:277) was
to examine the leadership behaviours exhibited by principals, team leaders and other
team members, in a primary school, a middle school, and a high school in one school
district in New York. They contended that much of the research related to shared
decision-making lacked "systematic observation of team functioning". The schools that
were part of this study were selected because they were involved in the "National Goals
2000" reform effort that mandated shared decision-making teams. Participant-observer
methodology was a key feature of the research design.
Each school had a decision-making team of between 11 to 13 members. The school
team met between one to two times per month and held between seven to thirteen
meeting times after school hours. Meeting times were between one to two hours
duration. All principals and team leaders received guidance and training on consensus
building and facilitative group processes. Overall thirteen interviews were conducted.
Meeting agendas were collected from each of the teams and thirty-three meetings were
observed and audio-taped resulting in written summaries. Two meetings from each team
were completely transcribed. The aim was to create a strong database from which to
draw conclusions. Two coding systems based on decision content and decision-making
processes were used along with a third coding system which focussed on statements and
analysis related to participants involvement in decision-making.
41
In the middle school and the high school, the school team established shared leadership
strategies; although the principal was prominent in the decision-making process, he was
not considered to be an inhibitor to decision-making. On the other hand, the primary
school team exhibited dissension and a dominating principal, which the researchers
claimed as an indication that teachers did not feel included in decision-making
processes.
Gelzheiser, Meyers and Meyers (2001:309) claimed that a major factor in the success of
the two "shared leadership" teams was the importance of "establishing a shared vision"
in promoting participative decision-making. They also felt that all three teams could
have functioned better if they had received additional training. A key finding was that
observational feedback could support and complement shared decision-making teams..
The researchers (2001:280) contended that there were two outcomes of significance in
their study. First, they claimed that no prior research of this nature was found that used a
similar methodology to examine leadership behaviours related to shared decision-
making. Second, that leadership and the team effectiveness was measured by the
"number of decisions made and efficiency in reaching decisions". The study enabled the
researchers to make comparisons regarding leadership and its effects on the decision-
making teams.
42
Kleins (2002:118) undertook a study to investigate the decision-making patterns
attributed to principals operating at various "success levels" in the school. He contended
that school effectiveness depends to a large extent on the ability of the principal, and
that a characteristic ascribed to successful leaders is "high competence in problem-
solving and decision-making". Ninety-nine elementary and junior high school principals
were chosen by random sample from a district of the Israeli Ministry of Education. The
study investigated three phases of decision-making which included the "process",
"classification and analysis", and "the importance of the problem according to the
decision-maker".
The greater the level the decision-maker ascribed to each of these points by
distinguishing between objective and subjective aspects, then the higher the quality of
the decision according to the researcher. Three groups were represented. Principals were
ranked by their supervisors and the rankings were grouped as "highly successful",
"moderately successful", and "unsuccessful" as principals, based on assessments by a
school supervisor and an external advisor. The assessments of principals in each group
were based on an examination of school documentation, staff stability, interviews with
staff and parents, meetings with the principal, and school visits.
After the principals were ranked by their supervisors they responded to a survey, which
investigated independent variables related to decision-making such as "analysis",
"making a decision" and "reporting in detail the considerations in making the decision".
Differences between the successful and unsuccessful principals were scrutinised
43
according to the three stages of the decision-making process and a regression analysis
was undertaken to determine the contribution of the decision-making patterns used by
the principal, to their success as a principal.
Results showed that, in the first two stages of decision-making, successful principals
regarded it as important to gather data from objective sources compared to the
unsuccessful principals whose emphasis was on subjective sources. In the final decision-
making stage both successful and unsuccessful principals had a preference for the
subjective sources, typically being a high level of consultation, although this was more
apparent with the successful principals.
Klein (2003:132) contended that a process of appointing a principal, which included a
decision-making test combined with a locus of control test, would help identify _
unsuitable candidates; however, he cautioned that the development of accurate tests to
distinguish between average and high ability principals would be required.
Research related to educational decision-making supports the contention that the
increased involvement of teachers in decision-making processes is more likely to lead to
lasting educational change and innovation. Where decision-making delegation is
dispersed and distributed beyond the principal and where teachers are actively and
genuinely involved in decision—making, teachers perceive greater levels of
empowerment and job satisfaction and are less likely to be resistant to change. Where
there are variations of teachers' level of involvement in decision making this might be
44
related to teachers perceptions of the school leadership and the principal's beliefs about
school leadership. Principals considered to be exemplary are characterised in the
research literature as being leaders who focus on developing shared governance and
vision, are highly consultative and who promote participative decision-making.
School Leadership
Research on the development of successful schools acknowledges the importance of the
leadership role. The findings related to educational leaders suggest that effective and
purposeful leadership is generally accepted as being a central factor in a school's ability
to sustain improvement and to operate as a professional learning community.
A study by Blase (1987:592) examined teachers' perspectives on effective school
leadership. Teachers and principals were interviewed in a two-phase study using both•
structured and unstructured interviews and what the researcher called "informal
interviews".
In the interviews for the first phase of the study, teachers were asked to identify and
discuss personal and professional life factors which they believed contributed to
significant changes in their work perspectives. A second phase of data collection
involved a series of three interviews with 40 teachers to find out how teachers
perceived dimensions of principals' effectiveness and interviews were conducted with
ten teachers who were selected because the views they held were not adequately
represented in the study. In the second phase, interviews focussed on themes
45
representing teachers' definitions of effective and ineffective school leadership, and
teachers' were asked to identify and fully describe characteristics of principals with
whom they had worked.
The sample for both phase one and phase two consisted of between 75 to 80 male and
female teachers in an urban, bi-racial high school in the southeastern United States. The
teachers in the sample were highly qualified, committed to their work and satisfied with
their school leadership, although the process of establishing this commitment is not
described in the research study.
Data collected was coded according to guidelines for grounded theory analysis. Constant
comparative analysis was used to code the data, and "task" and "consideration" related
dimensions of leadership were used as an organising framework. Data was analysed
through open coding and results indicated that leadership orientation was a significant
factor shaping teachers work perspectives.
Task related dimensions of leadership included accessibility, consistency, knowledge /
expertise, expectations, decisiveness, goals / direction, follow through, time
management, and problem solving orientation. Consideration related dimensions of
leadership included support, participation / consultation, fairness / equitability,
recognition and delegation. Results indicated that principals perceived by teachers as
effective principals exhibited most of each of the factors identified and it was found that
these factors were interrelated.
46
Blase (1987:607-608) concluded that leadership factors affected teacher motivation,
involvement and morale, and improved the possibility of productive relationships
between teachers and that these relationships were "highly interdependent". The
researcher acknowledged that the study is only one perspective and suggested further
research related to teachers' perceptions of "effective principals would be helpful".
Cheng (1994:182) investigated the relationship between teachers' locus of control, job
attitudes and perceptions of school organisational characteristics, such as leadership.
The sample of teachers was drawn from a homogeneous group of schools referred to as
"aided secondary schools" in Hong Kong. Aided secondary schools are established and
operated on the basis of codes issued by the Hong Kong government. Sixty-five schools
were randomly selected and invited to participate in the study and 54 schools accepted.
Within each sampled school 12 teachers were randomly selected and asked to complete
measuring instruments. The average numbers of respondents in each school was 10.89
and the total number involved in the study was 588.
The instruments in the study measured organisational characteristics, attitude, and locus
of control. The sample of teachers was divided into two groups consisting of teachers
with an internal locus of control (ILC) (N=321) and those teachers with an external
locus of control (ELC) (N=267). Responses to the measures of organisational
characteristics and attitudes were analysed according to the two assigned groups of locus
of control.
47
Results showed that teachers with an ILC tended to have positive job attitudes and
feelings and were more committed, satisfied, self-motivated, self-assured and perceived
school leadership with a high initiating structure, high consideration and high charisma.
The researcher indicated that a possible explanation for this finding is that those teachers
with an ELC have higher expectations of their school leaders and depended on them
more than those teachers with an ILC. Teachers with an ILC tended to perceive
instructions and communications in the school as being more formalised whereas
teachers with an ELC tended to perceive that the school was less formalised.
Cheng (1994:186-187) concluded that locus of control is a "powerful indicator of
teachers' job attitudes, feelings and perceptions about organisational characteristics".
Teachers with an ILC appear to have more positive perceptions of the school
organisation than teachers with an ELC. Cheng contended that school leadership and
culture may make a difference in teachers' perception of school organisational factors.
Hsieh and Shen (1998:107) in the State of Michigan investigated teachers', principals'
and superintendents' perceptions "of a good educational leader". The study consisted of
three focus groups comprising seven people representing superintendents, principals,
and teachers. The samples were selected by consulting the Michigan Education
Directory.
48
Focus groups were used to collect data and the primary questions were. "What are the
skills of good educational leaders? What might a good educational leader need to know?
What values would you expect good educational leaders to hold?". At the end of the
discussion for each question, the moderators asked each focus group. "What is the most
important skill, knowledge and value of a good educational leader?" The interviews
were audio-taped and the data transcribed verbatim and codes were developed for each
of three question domains: skill, knowledge and value.
Results showed that in the skill domain teachers, principals and superintendents
identified the qualities that educational leaders should have as being good levels of
"communication", "problem-solving", "organisational", "collaboration", "modelling",
"decision-making", "listening", "interpersonal" and "client and community skills". All
three groups agreed that communication and listening skills were the important skills. A..
range of types of knowledge was identified but with differing views regarding their
importance. Teachers, principals and superintendents identified 18 characteristics, none
of which were common to each other.
Hsieh and Shen (1998:122) concluded that the results showed both similarities and
differences existed among the groups. More differences exist in the skill and knowledge
domains than in the value domain while the moral perspective was common to each
group. The researchers acknowledged the small samples in this study and that a
limitation with focus group research is the possibility that participants may be
influenced by the group interaction and opinion of others. However they concluded that
49
the findings have implications for explaining "the leadership phenomenon" and for
developing future school leaders.
A study by Leonard and Leonard (1999) focussed on identifying leadership sources for
implementing new programmes and teaching practices at three selected schools in an
urban area of eastern Canada. Two elementary schools and a high school, with 19, 36
and 37 teachers respectively, were identified for the study. Each school had a full-time
principal and a half-time deputy principal. Teachers were asked to complete a survey
indicating those groups they considered to be most influential in the implementation of
new programmes or teaching practices.
The survey choices included components relating to school administration as well as
school councils. Respondents were asked to make as many selections as they wished,
including others not listed. They were also asked to identify the single most influential
source for change. Specific detail related to the survey construction and data analysis
information was not reported in the research study.
Results indicated that in each of the participating schools, the principal was the most
widely identified source of leadership in implementing new programmes or teaching
practices. Responses for the three schools ranged from 50% - 63%. The high school
ranked principals as the most influential source of leadership with a response of 74%,
with elementary schools lower at 39% - 25%. Deputy principals were not perceived as a
predominant source of influential leadership in any of the schools.
50
Leonard and Leonard (1999:239) claimed that the results support the "continuing
recognition of the pivotal role played by school principals in school improvement
initiatives". An issue raised by the researchers concerns perceived formal and informal
influence. Staff members in the high school and one of the primary schools considered
informal initiatives for change to be greater than formal structures such as committees.
The researchers concluded two findings. First, as the factors that influence innovation
change within schools, new frames of reference need to be considered. Second,
collaboration is important and formal opportunities while desirable are not the only
effective means of collaborating.
In a study by Hipp and Huffman, (2000:290) dimensions of leadership were examined to
see how they were perceived in schools. Adapted from a study by Hord in 1997 the
interactive leadership dimensions of shared vision and values, shared and supportive
leadership, collective learning and application, supportive conditions, and shared
personal practice were identified as common to schools operating as "professional
learning communities".
Nineteen schools drawn from nine states in the midwest, southeast and northwest of the
USA were selected for the study. Thirty-eight principal and teacher representatives (one
principal and one teacher from each of the 19 schools) were interviewed by telephone
using a semi-structured interview protocol. The interviews were audio-taped,
transcribed, and analysed using a series of inter-rater reliability techniques. The
51
transcripts were coded for recurring themes and then reviewed and validated by another
researcher.
Through analysis of data, using the existence of each of the five leadership dimensions
as criteria, schools were categorised into two groups: schools with a high level of
readiness for developing as a learning community and schools with a low level of
readiness for developing as a learning community. Principals and teachers were again
interviewed to confirm evidence of the leadership dimensions existing within their
school, and that the categorisation of the schools, in terms of readiness to develop as a
learning community, had been appropriately determined.
Results indicated that schools classified as high-readiness to develop a learning
community and low-readiness schools varied significantly. In "high-readiness" schools,
principals were perceived as pro-active, supportive, and innovative and had high
expectations focussed on student learning and teacher change management. Teachers in.
"high-readiness" schools indicated that conditions of trust and respect had been
established which supported shared decision-making and the development and
implementation of a shared vision. In "low-readiness schools", evidence of shared
visions was not found. Resistance to change and a lack of trust or openness were evident
in "low-readiness" schools.
Hipp and Huffman (2000:306) concluded that the key findings of the study related to the
leadership practices of the principal. Principals in high readiness schools were seen as
52
being collaborative, empowering and operating shared leadership and decision-making
structures.
Principal Leadership
Effective school principals are regarded as a key to education change and reform.
Research studies generally support the notion that principal leadership can make a
difference in student learning and to the practice of teachers. The attitudes and values of
principals are believed to be a major influence in the way that they interpret their role.
Research suggests that the school principalship needs to be viewed in such a way that
cognitive, cultural, economic and political dimensions are seen as important in
determining the changing role. More broadly, research on school reform initiatives
highlights the significant and evolving role of principal leadership in the restructuring of
schools.
A study by Kowalski, Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto (1992) examined teachers' and
principals' perceptions of the skills required for principal effectiveness. Three research
questions were addressed: differences in teachers' perceptions of skill categories
necessary for principal effectiveness according to the size of school; differences in
teachers' and principals' perceptions of skill categories necessary for principal
effectiveness; and the differences that teachers' and principals' assigned to individual
skills.
53
A survey was administered to teachers and principals in a random stratified sample
drawn from 36 schools in the Indiana school directory. Stratification was according to
type and size of school and included twelve each of elementary, middle, and high
schools. Within each category, four large, four medium, and four small schools related
to school population were selected. The numbers differed for each school within and
between categories.
A 24-item survey was drawn from eight categories of principalship skills covering
technical, conceptual and human skills. Each school received ten teacher surveys and a
principal survey. Principals were asked to distribute the surveys to the first ten teachers
on their school roster and teachers were asked to rank order skills with regard to their
perceptions of each skill's importance to principal effectiveness. Twenty- eight of the
thirty-six schools returned surveys and the total number returned was 240, of which 212
were teachers surveys and 28 were from principals, giving a 60.6% individual return
rate.
Data was analysed, testing for significance using one-factor and two-factor analysis of
variance. Results indicated that teachers considered human skills to be most important to
principal effectiveness with elementary teachers responses the highest. Technical skills
were perceived as the least important category by all three of the teachers groups. Both
teachers and principals rated human skills as the most important category but teachers
placed greater importance on human skills and lesser importance on technical skills than
54
did principals, while there was no statistically significant differences between the way
the groups rated conceptual skills.
Kowalski, Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto (1992:309) concluded that the study provided
insight into the skills perceived by teachers and principals to be essential for principal
effectiveness, and in the process raised a number of issues related to the preparation of
school principals and practices of school for administration. These issues include
questioning the importance to "emphasise technical knowledge" as compared to "an
increased emphasis on human relations skills."
A study by Short (1994:493) examined the role of the principal in the growth and the
development of empowered schools where participant groupings were functioning as
self-managing. The research question guiding the study focused on identifying the
attitudes, roles and knowledge utilised by the principals in each empowered school that
encouraged self-managing work groups to become self-evaluative, self-monitoring, and
self-reinforcing.
All of the schools in the study were located in the eastern and central part of a middle
Atlantic state and were from four districts, two suburban and two urban districts where
the principals in each school had been in their positions for eight to ten years.
Observations, interviews and document analysis was used to collect the data. The four
sites selected for the study were chosen on the basis of autonomous functioning and self-
direction exhibited by teams within the school.
55
To collect the data required, it was necessary to observe self-managing team
interactions. Observations of the principal were conducted over a six-month period and
focused on those behaviours, actions and roles that fostered autonomy and self-direction
within teams. Interviews took place and with the principal and teachers in the teams and
focus group interviews were held with students. Data analysis included the coding of
role behaviours, attitudes and knowledge of principals in developing self-managing
teams derived from observations, interview transcripts and school documents. The data
was reviewed for identification of parallel and dissenting responses and for the
identification of frequently occurring variables.
Results from the study indicated that the roles and behaviours assumed by principals
related to four central themes. First, behaviour of the principals in each of the four
schools was helping the team to engage in reflection. Second, the role the principal
played in facilitating the focusing of the team on goals. The teams that succeeded in
becoming self-managing were those that established clear goals and knew how to move
forward. Third, the principal encouraged team members to be critical of their
performance by modelling self-criticism. Finally, self-reinforcement by the four
principals in the study in acknowledging their own success. Short (1994:500) concluded
that the behavioural themes "gleaned from the principals" in this study, such as
"facilitative behaviours that encourage self-managing work groups", would contribute to
the understanding of the kind of leadership behaviour that fosters self-managing teams
in schools.
56
A study by Gonzales and Short (1996) investigated the relationship between the
principal's use of power bases and teachers perceived level of empowerment.
Participants in the study included 301 teachers from six elementary schools, five middle
schools and three high schools in an urban school district in the state of Florida. The
data indicated that 216 (71.8%) of the teachers were female, 81(26.9%) were male.
The study was described to teachers in staff meetings in each participating school and
teachers who agreed to participate in the study were given a week to complete the
instruments. The School Participant Empowerment Scale (SPES) was used to measure
teachers' perceived levels of empowerment. It consisted of 38 statements on a five-point
likert-scale, which contained six subscales: decision-making, professional growth,
status, self-efficacy, autonomy and impact.
Teachers' perceptions of the principal's use of power was measured by the Rahim
Leader Power Inventory (RLPI) which contained 29 items, using a five point likert-
scale, to measure five power bases: coercive power, reward power, legitimate power,
expert power, and referent power. Construct validity of the RLPI was partly tested
through factor analysis. Data was analysed using multiple regression analysis and the
results revealed that the variables of expert power, referent power, and reward power
contribute significantly to the way in which teachers perceive their level of
empowerment. Data analysis showed no relationship between teachers' perceptions of
empowerment and teachers characteristics such as age, gender, experience, school level
and educational background.
57
Gonzales and Short (1996:214) concluded that "expert power", "reward power" and
"referent power" were "powerful sources of influence that principals can use in creating
an empowering environment for teachers". Teachers in the study indicated that the more
that they were empowered the more they believed that their principals did not use
reward or punishment to influence teachers work and behaviour. The researchers
claimed that "expert power" offered principals the most potential for influencing
teachers for school improvement.
A study by Blase and Blase (2000) examined teachers' perspectives on principals'
everyday instructional leadership characteristics and the impact of those characteristics
on teachers. Data for the study was collected from 809 full-time public school teachers
taking courses at universities located in the south-eastern, mid-western, and north-
eastern USA. The data was collected by means of an open-ended survey using the
Inventory of Strategies Used by Principals to Influence Classroom Teaching (ISUPICT).
Respondents comprised 251 males and 558 females, 275 rural, 291 suburban and 243
urban teacher's, and 380 elementary, 177 middle /junior high school and 252 high
school teachers. Their responses included descriptions of 398 male and 411 female
principals. Data from the respondents was coded according to the guidelines for
inductive-exploratory research and comparative analysis.
Results showed that, in effective principal-teacher interaction related to instruction,
teachers preferred flexible rather than rigid teaching procedures and methods. Two
58
themes emerged from the data. Principals accustomed to talking with teachers promoted
reflection, and professional growth. Effective principals valued talking with teachers and
encouraging them to critically reflect on their learning and professional practice by
making suggestions, providing feedback, modelling, inquiry, and giving praise.
The results indicated that principals used six strategies to promote professional growth
as follows: emphasising the study of teaching and learning, supporting collaboration,
developing coaching relationships, encouraging and supporting programme changes,
using adult learning strategies, and implementing action research to inform instructional
decision-making.
Blase and Blase (2000:136) concluded that talking with teachers to promote reflection
and professional learning and promoting professional growth are the two main
dimensions of effective instructional leadership. Principals who are developing as
effective instructional leaders should work to "integrate reflection and growth" to build
a school culture for instructional improvement.
Transformational Leadership
During a time of school restructuring, a transformational approach to school leadership
has been seen as a way of leading schools through complex changes and challenges.
Transformational leadership is characterised as being people orientated, where leaders
build relationships and a commitment to a shared vision with all members of the school
community.
59
Kirby, Paradise and King (1992:306) investigated the degree to which educational
leaders were perceived to use transformational and transactional leadership behaviours.
One hundred and three educators from six different United States school districts
responded to multi level questionnaire (MLQ) items regarding their immediate
supervisor.
The sample consisted of 88(85.4%) teachers from kindergarten to 12 th grade, 7 (6.8%)
principals, and 8 (7.8%) assistant school administrators. All of the subjects were
enrolled in university graduate classes. The leaders that they describe include 88
(85.4%) principals, 3 (2.9%) superintendents, and 12(11.7%) other office
administrators. Scores for the MLQ were calculated by averaging item scores for each
factor but the number of items and the construction of the MLQ were not provided.
Results indicated that "charisma", "individualised consideration", and "contingent
reward" were related to perceived effectiveness of, and satisfaction with, the leader. The
researchers expressed concern in accounting for perceived effectiveness once the
association with satisfaction was removed. A step-wise regression analysis showed that
the only MLQ factor that augmented the power of satisfaction was "intellectual
stimulation". Kirby, Paradise and King (1992:306) concluded that "charsima alone"
does not explain leadership effectiveness because it neglects the "observable behaviours
and characteristics of leaders that make them appear to be charismatic."
60
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) examined the influences of transformational school
leadership on teacher perceptions of the principal. It was the researcher's view that
transformational leadership was well suited to the demands of complex reform agendas,
such as school-based management initiatives. The researchers conducted a survey of
teachers and principals in a large school system in Canada which measured dimensions
of transformational leadership. The surveys also collected data that related to teacher,
leader and school characteristics.
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996:525) found that because leadership is an influencing
process, being perceived as a leader by teachers is just as important to a leader's
effectiveness as is a particular leadership behaviour. The researchers reported that
teachers' perceptions of what things a principal should do was significant in their
judgment of a principal as an effective leader. They concluded that "doing good work on
behalf of one's school" by the principal influenced teachers' perception of principal
leadership.
A study by Osterman and Crow (1997:390) examined role conceptions of newly
appointed urban principals as a means of identifying personal and organisational forces
that influence the emergence of transformational leadership. The study took place in the
New York City Board of Education, which had experienced a high turnover of 25% of
principals as a result of an early retirement package. A survey was distributed to 316
new principals, four to five months after they entered their new positions. The purpose
of the survey was to develop a descriptive profile of these principals. The survey
61
consisted of 36 open-ended and closed questions relating to biographical and career
information, leadership beliefs and problem solving processes. Descriptive statistics
were used to develop a demographic and experience profile of the principals and content
analysis was used with the open-ended questions to identify patterns and to illustrate
closed responses. The response rate of 73% consisted of 74% elementary schools, 19%
junior high or intermediate schools, and 7% high schools and 1% special schools. The
average age was 46 years and 58% of the respondents were women.
Results showed that when the principals first entered the position their expectations
were of traditional role conceptions with responses divided evenly between four areas as
follows: leadership, management, human relations and personal characteristics. Fifty
percent of the responses relating to leadership focused on transformational leadership
behaviour. Principals rated student achievement, space and facilities and bureaucratic
procedures as the most serious problems while student morale and staff support was
rated moderately serious.
Fifty percent of principals rated three areas as strategic priorities, namely: first
developing positive working relationships with teachers, parents and students: second
promoting instructional supervision: third motivating staff to become involved in school
improvement. The researchers claimed these results indicated that new principals
recognised the influential role that the teachers and parents played and the need to
develop positive relationships, however, they gave little understanding to school culture
and conditions. Developing positive working relationships with district personnel rated
62
low even though the relationship with the district personnel had the ability to improve
bureaucratic issues. The researchers pointed out that the principals retained the view of
their role as instructional leader but ignored the implications of the bureaucracy of
which they were apart. While some principals were familiar with, and advocated
concepts of, transformational leadership, their primary goals were management and
instruction.
Osterman and Crow (1997:390) contended that the results indicated that the principals
while outwardly adopting the "language of transformational leadership" their
perspective of themselves was as managers and instructional leaders. They concluded
that reform requires the principals to act as change agents and that they need to be given
the autonomy necessary to exercise empowered leadership.
A study by Barnett, McCormick and Conners (2001) investigated the relationship
between the transformational and transactional leadership behaviours of school
principals, in the Sydney metropolitan area in New South Wales. Twelve secondary
schools were randomly selected from the population of secondary schools, and 15
teachers were randomly selected from each school to complete a survey. A total of 124
teachers completed surveys giving a response rate of 68%. The sample comprised 54%
female and 46% male teachers and 75% were aged 30 to 59 years. The teachers in the
sample held various positions in the school, including full-time classroom teachers
(57%), head teacher (23%), deputy principal (5%) and others (15%). A total of 64% of
63
the sample had more than eleven years teaching experience and 60% had ten years of
this experience in their current school.
A multi-factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) was used to measure leadership style,
based on three constructs of, transformational leadership, transactional leadership and
non-leadership. Results show that in the twelve schools involved both transformational
and transactional leadership were identified, however the teachers in the study did not
distinguish between the transformational leadership behaviours of charisma, intellectual
stimulation and inspirational motivation.
The finding that teachers did not distinguish between the transformational leadership
behaviour "individual concern" and the transactional leadership behaviour, "contingent
reward" indicated to the researchers that both leadership styles in practice are
intertwined. Barnett et al. (2001:32) concluded that the study suggests "that it may be
presumptuous per se to advocate transformational leadership" as the best way of
restructuring schools and that further research is needed to clarify perceptual differences
that exist with transformational leadership.
A study by Lam (2002:442) which investigated transformational leadership and its role
on school operations, sought to determine if the role of transformational leadership was
universal or culturally specific. School staff from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Western
Australia and central Canada, were included in the study. In Hong Kong data for the
study was drawn from sixty-seven public schools made up of 31 elementary and 36
64
secondary government and subsidised schools, (89% of the target population). In
Taiwan, 900 teaching staff from 88 public schools, 51 elementary and 37 secondary
schools (100% of the target population), and in Western Australia, 260 teaching staff
from six secondary schools (90% of the target population) took part. In Central Canada,
265 teaching staff from six secondary schools (50% of the target population) took part.
Survey data was subject to factor and regression analysis.
The results showed that the effects of transformational leadership on organisational
learning (OL) were equally significant when compared with the effects of other school
factors, such as "structure" and "culture". In Hong Kong and Taiwan, leadership played
a secondary role to school structure in facilitating OL processes. In Western Australia,
culture exerted a more dominant role than leadership but in Central Canada the role of
leadership was dominant. However, the researchers point out that due to the low
response rate from the Canadian sample, the results may need to be treated with caution.
Lam (2002:448-449) contended that school culture and structure are closely linked to
transformational leadership effects because the way in which these factors impact on OL
and leadership effectiveness in transforming schools is dependent on the way the school•
is organised, which Lam terms the "formal arrangements of work". Lam concluded that
the study supports the critical role assumed by the school leadership in developing "well
conceived coping strategies" to deal with the myriad of pressures faced by schools.
65
Research findings support the contention that leadership style plays an influential role in
determining the development of effective schools (Blase, 1987). Principal leadership
that has as its focus the development of collegial relationships, trust, empowerment and
support allows teachers the opportunity to work collectively toward school improvement
(Leonard and Leonard, 1999). Research shows that the leadership that teachers perceive
that makes a difference is seen to be both transformational and distributive (Jantzi and
Leithwood, 1996; Lam, 2002).
Summary
During the last decade leadership in New Zealand schools has undergone considerable
change as the devolution of responsibility towards SBM has meant that there has been a
shift in focus from centralised control to local decision-making (Wylie, 1999). This
chapter has focussed on the research literature relating to SBM and leadership in order
to inform the study, which examined the way, that teachers and principals perceived
school leadership in a SBM context.
The key points from this review of the research literature can be summarised as follows.
• School leadership that teachers perceive as making a difference is seen to be both
transformational and distributive (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996; Lam, 2002).
• Effective principals were perceived by teachers as exhibiting both consideration
and task related dimensions of leadership and these were seen to be interrelated
(Blase, 1987; Kowalski et al., 1992).
• The locus of control that teachers have, whether internal or external, affects the
way that teachers perceive leadership characteristics of the principal and the
66
organisation of the school (Cheng, 1994).
• Schools identified as having a high readiness for developing as a learning
community perceived the principal as proactive, supportive and innovative with
high expectations focussed on student learning and teacher change management
(Hipp and Huffman, 2000).,
• Qualities identified by teachers, principals and superintendents as qualities that
school leaders should possess included good levels of communication, problem
solving, interpersonal and client and community skills (Hsieh and Shen, 1998).
• The variables of expert power, referent power and reward power were seen by
teachers as contributing significantly to the way in which they perceived their
level of empowerment in the school (Gonzales and Short, 1996).
• Where teachers perceive principals as doing what they consider a principal
should do, they perceive the principal as a positive and effective leader (Jantzi
and Leithwood, 1996; Dee, Henkin and Pell, 2002).
• Transition towards SBM initiatives is more readily accepted when it is supported
by boards, superintendents, principals and teachers (Matranga, Homer, Hill and
Peltier 1993; Heck and Brandon, 1995; O'Donoghue and Obrien, 1995; Beck
and Murphy, 1998).
• Teachers identified that the role that the school principal played was of critical
importance in school improvement under SBM (Delaney, 1997). High levels of
participation in school decision-making processes lessens teachers' resistance to
change (Heck and Brandon, 1995).
67
• Solutions orientated and problem solving approaches towards conflict
management are preferred by principals and are seen to work best where the
principal works through consensual and cooperative processes (Henkin, Cistone
and Dee, 2000).
• Increased commitment on the part of teachers to SBM reforms is not matched by
their greater involvement in school democratic processes and does not
necessarily translate to better learning results in schools (Mulford, Kendall and
Kendall, 2003; Wylie, 1999).
• Where teachers' perceptions of school leadership are viewed as positive, they are
less likely to desire increased levels of involvement in school managerial
decision-making and are more likely to focus their involvement on decisions of a
technical nature (Duke and Gansneder 1990).
• Where teachers perceived that they had higher levels of involvement in school s
decision-making they perceived that they had increased levels of job satisfaction
and influence (Rice and Schneider, 1994).
• Principals identified as exemplary "shared governance principals" were not
perceived as being dominating and were more likely to work with others as
equals, and were considered to be trusting and highly collaborative (Blase and
Blase, 1999).
68
Conclusion
In brief, five conclusions can be drawn from the research literature. First, SBM and the
devolution of decision-making responsibility to schools and their local community has
created the need for change in the way schools perceive leadership (Blase and Blase
1999; Dee, Henkin and Pell, 2002; Mulford, Kendall and Kendall; 2003). Second,
research concerning school decision-making highlights the importance of empowerment
and shared decision-making where decisions are made by the people who have to
implement them, and that processes for decision-making are participatory and
democratic (Delaney, 1997; Rhinehart, Short and Johnson 1997). Third, school leaders
who are perceived as effective may have a significant influence regarding school
improvement (Short, 1994; Gonzales and Short 1996). Fourth, the way that teachers
perceive principals, regardless of the qualities of leadership that a principal may have,
influences the way that teachers perceive the principal as an effective leader (Kowalski,
Reitzug, McDaniel and Otto, 1992; Lam 2002; Jantzi and Leithwood 1996). Last,
research concerning leadership styles indicates that transformational and distributive
forms of school leadership play a significant role in the development of effective
schools (Brown, Boyle and Boyle, 1999; Lam, 2002).
These key points and conclusions will be revisited and compared with the results of this
study in chapter five. In the next chapter, the procedures and methods utilised in the
research design, data gathering and data analysis are presented.
69
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific
region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)
perceived school leadership in terms of leadership style and leadership management
strategies. The three research questions selected for the study were as follows:
Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and
principals consider as important in their school leaders?
Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making
processes?
Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected
by factors such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school, position of
responsibility, experience, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with being a
principal?
This chapter presents the methodology for the study and the method of data collection
and data analysis for the investigative phases that comprise the study. The remainder of
the chapter is organised according to the following headings: seeking permission to
70
conduct the study; research design; defining the population; data gathering instruments
selected for the study; design of data gathering instruments; trialing the data gathering
instruments; administration of the data gathering instruments; data recording and data
analysis; validity; reliability; and, triangulation.
Seeking Permission to Conduct the Study
Permission to conduct this study was granted by the Southern Tasmania Social Sciences
Human Research Ethics Committee and the principals of the schools. In New Zealand,
permission to undertake research in schools is the prerogative of the principal. Formal
written approval was not required from the New Zealand Ministry of Education.
Research Design
The case study method was selected as the most appropriate method to conduct
naturalistic research in one particular school region. Burns (1997:364-365) pointed out .
that a case study is a "bounded system" consisting of "meaningful characteristics of real
life events". The study into how teachers and principals in one specific region of New
Zealand perceive school leadership lends itself to a case study methodology because the
region under study could be considered as a bounded system and the data is to be
gathered in a natural setting. As with other New Zealand school districts, the Otago
region has experienced 14 years of School-Based Management (SBM).
Stake (1995:2) emphasised the importance of setting the parameters of a case study and
he pointed out that it must have "boundedness" and be an "integrated system". For case
71
study "the first criterion should be to maximise what we can learn" and defining the
parameters allows the data gathering to be focussed.
Naturalistic inquiry acknowledges the paradigm that people construct their own meaning
for events that occur in a particular context. According to Crotty (1998:8) the researcher
needs to engage with subjects in the research context and he pointed out "There is no
objective truth waiting for us to discover it. Truth, or meaning, come into existence in
and out of our engagement with the realities in our world". Further Crotty (1998:8)
emphasised the importance of using "non-interfering" data collection strategies because
the researcher needs to allow the subjects to express their own viewpoints in their own
way.
Ruben and Babbie (1997:355) suggested that an advantage of naturalistic research is that
"interaction between data collection and data analysis affords a greater flexibility" for
the researcher than in the structure required of experimental designs.
Burns (1997:364) described the value of the naturalistic approach as being one which
takes place in natural settings rather than contrived situations, and that it is an
appropriate way of gathering data for research questions. Bums argued that the strengths
of a case study approach were seen in the ability to "generate rich subjective data" that
may produce "variables, phenomena, processes and relationships that deserve more
intensive investigation". Tellis (1997:1) proposed that case study is an "ideal
72
methodology" to use for naturalistic enquiry because it allows a "holistic in-depth
investigation".
Conducting research in natural settings enables the use of a range of data gathering
techniques. Denzin and Lincoln (1994:2) contended that naturalistic research is
"multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to subject
matter". Punch (1998:153) suggested that research in a natural setting typically involved
"multiple sources of data and multiple data collection" due to the scope of the natural
setting. An important component in a case study, according to Yin (1994), is the
researcher's ability to identify and manage a variety of evidence sourced from diverse
data collection methods and to use them in ways which might be complementary.
Limitations of case study research are identified by Cohen, Manion and Morrison
(2000:184) as being that "the results may not be generalizable" and that "they are prone
to the problems of observer bias". Stake (1995:12) suggested that case studies are
vulnerable to interpretation "it is not uncommon for case study researchers to make
assertions on a relatively small data base invoking the privilege and responsibility of
interpretation".
Yin (1994:38) proposed that a focus on particular contexts or phases of a case study
could provide opportunities for examination of specific aspects and in so doing "add
significant opportunities for extensive analysis enhancing the insights into the single
case". Describing these phases as units of analysis, Yin (1994:120) indicated that these
73
units of analysis could be used to improve understanding, with the results for each phase
being treated as though they were " but one of several factors in a pattern-matching or
explanation-building analysis at the single case level"
Stake (1995:8) contended that the "real business of a case study is particularisation not
generalisation". However, Issac and Michael (1995:52) argued that a weakness of case
study method is that there is the potential for being a "narrowly focussed observation",
limited in their representativeness and therefore unsuitable for generalisation. Further, a
case study may be vulnerable to "subjective biases" due to the close relationship
between the subject under observation and the researcher. On this basis, Issac and
Michael raise concerns about the interpretation of findings drawn from case studies.
Criticism related to the generalisability of single case studies, according to Punch
(1998:153-154), needs to be taken "seriously". He claimed that researchers need to ask.
whether they would "want to generalise from a particular case study", and they should
consider the possibility that the case may be of significant importance to the extent that
"it deserves study in its own right". Punch also maintained that some cases are so
significantly distinct from others and that this justifies "creating the need to understand
why this case is so different", reinforcing the exploratory nature of a case study.
A case study methodology involving a multi-method data gathering approach was
selected for the study. The Otago region of New Zealand is a clearly defined separate
system within the wider New Zealand education system. A case study method is useful
for research that is exploratory in nature and occurs in a natural setting. A case study
74
design enabled the researcher to explore school leadership as a particular aspect of
SBM. The researcher employed multi-strategies in data gathering which was important
in strengthening data analysis in case study design.
Definition of the Population
A) Survey of Teachers and Survey of Principals
The target population for the case study was all teachers and principals in the Otago
District of New Zealand, in primary, contributing and intermediate schools with an
enrolment of at least 150 students. The target population comprised approximately 413
teachers and 40 principals.
Two features of the target population were important to the research design of the study.
First, it was decided to use only the schools which had a population of 150 students
because schools of this size would have in place a full administrative structure of
principal, deputy principal and teachers. In small schools, due to small staff numbers,
school leadership patterns may be less clearly defined. In larger schools there would be
an increased opportunity to examine school leadership patterns and decision-making
structures.
Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) found that school size was a key factor in influencing
perception of leadership. Second, it was decided to focus on primary, contributing and
intermediate levels because, in contrast to secondary schools, these schools are less
diverse and less complex in structure. Further, it was considered important to diminish
75
as much as possible the influence of subject departments as separate entities within a
school (Busher and Harris, 2000).
In secondary schools the leadership and administration structures are more complex and
leadership practice more diffuse. This decision was taken in the context of
acknowledging findings from research by Mulford et al. (2001) that teachers and
principals in primary schools are more satisfied with school-based management than
secondary teachers and principals.
B) Semi-Structured Follow-up Interviews
It was decided to randomly sample ten percent of teachers who participated in the
survey to participate in a follow-up interview. The random sample was organised
through the principals. Principals in schools participating in the case study were asked to
number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher compiled a list of sequential .-.,
numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher's
number was drawn the school was contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the
number participated in the survey and, if so, whether the teacher would agree to
participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who participated in the teacher
survey were used in the interview group. This procedure was designed to preserve the
anonymity of the teachers. Interviews were arranged at a time and place agreeable to the
teacher being interviewed.
76
C) Semi-Structured Interviews of Senior Teachers
Four schools from the forty schools in the region were randomly selected for
further data gathering as mini-case studies. As part of the data gathering,
teachers who held the position of senior teacher were invited to participate in a
semi-structured interview. The population of senior teachers in these four
schools is estimated as approximately ten teachers.
Data Gathering Instruments Selected for the Study
The three data gathering instruments selected for this study comprised:
1. A survey of teachers and principals;
2. Semi-structured follow-up interviews of teachers and semi-structured interviews
of senior teacher; and,
3. Document analysis.
A) Survey
As it was considered useful to gather data from all teachers and principals in the
case study Otago region, a survey was selected as the data gathering instrument. A
survey is a research tool that enables the researcher to gather data from a large
population relatively easily and, according to Burns (1997:469), an "obvious one to
adopt" particularly if "the population was scattered geographically". Burns
(1997:109) recognised that an advantage of a survey included the ability to collect
information covering a long duration "in a few minutes" and the opportunity to
"observe patterns in data"; however, Burns identified a disadvantage in that "the
77
attempt to produce comparable information by standard questions can lead to the
obscuring of subtle differences". Burns (1997:473) also argued that surveys, due to
the closed nature of the questions, have the potential to "annoy respondents" who
are possibly unable to find "alternatives suitable", or have to make "responses that
are unsuitable".
Mertens (1998:109) acknowledged that the advantages of surveys included the
ability to collect "detailed information" and that they allow the respondent
time to reflect on the question "before responding". The disadvantages
identified by Mertens included "lower response rates" and the inability to
"probe for in-depth answers".
A survey administered to a large number of teachers and principals was
regarded as an effective way of gathering a broad range of information relating to their
perceptions of school leadership, which would form the basis of the data gathering
process.
B) Interviews
Interviews were used to gather solicited and unsolicited information and were designed
to expand upon and clarify material from the survey. The interview schedule allowed the
opportunity to investigate in some depth the experiences of the interviewee. From the
perspective of Stake (1995:65) an interview enables the researcher to proceed beyond
78
"simple yes and no answers" into areas that provide "description of an episode, a
linkage, an explanation".
According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison, (2000:278) generally accepted practise
dictates that "the kind of information and the means of its acquisition will determine the
choice of response mode". Further to this, they argued that the use of "prompts" and
"probes" make it possible in the semi-structured interview format for the interviewee to
"clarify or qualify their response, thereby addressing richness, depth of response,
comprehensiveness and honesty": Cohen et al. (2000:271) considered that a weakness of
semi-structured interviews was the way that the researcher structured questions in that
"interviewer flexibility in sequencing and wording questions can result in substantially
different responses, thus reducing the comparability of responses".
Burns (1997:330) referred to semi-structured interviews in the context of being "a part
of a structured interview or an unstructured interview". He suggested that they provide
the interviewer with the opportunity to gain "a more valid response from the informants
perception of reality", by having some form of structure. According to Burns, a
difficulty with semi-srtuctured interviews is that "comparability of the information
between informants is difficult to assess and response coding issues will arise"
Polit and Hungler (1997:294) drew attention to a drawback of information collected by
semi-structured interviews as being the problem in deciphering the data gathered. A
range of points of view may provide difficulty when it comes to organising the
79
responses and their relevance to a research question. However, they indicated that
"interviews can enhance the quality of self report-data through probing and ability to
produce additional data through observation".
From Ruben and Babbie's (1997:345) perspective, unstructured interviews aid the
collection of a wider spectrum of information. They contend that in the unstructured
interview situation the interviewer "establishes a general direction for the conversation
and persues specific topics raised by the respondent".
The semi-structured interview enabled the researcher to gather from subjects, who had
participated in the survey, information that could be used to cross check, clarify and
expand upon findings from the survey. The interview of senior teachers enabled the
researcher to gather information from differing perspectives to further clarify and verify
the data gathered from teachers by survey and interview.
C) Document Analysis
Document analysis as a research tool provided the opportunity to examine a
variety of written records. According to Stake (1995:68) documents "can be
key repositories or measures for the case" and also "documents serve as
substitutes for records of activity that the researcher could not observe
directly". Stake contended that "Gathering data by studying documents
follows the same line of thinking as observing or interviewing".
80
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:161-163) considered documents, such as "official
minutes or records", as "sources of primary data" which are "capable of transmitting a
first-hand account of an event". They also stressed the importance of using "primary
sources" of data where possible due to the fact that secondary sources, such as second
person accounts, "are made up of data that cannot be described as original". However,
the use of primary sources of data attracts criticism "concerned with establishing the
authenticity of the data" and "the accuracy and worth of the data contained therein".
Because a significant amount of data can be sourced from documents it is important that
"they are carefully evaluated so as to attest their worth for the purposes of the particular
study".
Mertens (1998:324) contended that document review allows the researcher 'to get the
necessary background of the situation and insights into the dynamics of everyday
functioning". The task then becomes one of "how to interpret the meaning of such
material".
Document analysis was undertaken relating to school leadership management strategies.
School documents from four randomly selected schools were analysed. The documents
identified for the study are listed as follows: School notice book, curriculum and school
policy planning documentation, staff and syndicate meeting agendas and minute records,
staff and school newsletters and internal memos sent by the principal to staff members.
81
Design of Data Gathering Instruments
A) Survey of Teachers
A survey was designed to gather information about teachers' perceptions of school
leadership. The survey consisted of questions structured as follows: two rating scale
questions of 11 items each, two questions designed as Likert-scales, with one question
containing 26 statements and one question containing nine statements, and nine
questions which sought information about the respondents.
Rating scale questions are useful to find out how respondents' place a value on an
individual item. Comparisons can be made between the way that respondents value
particular items.
Likert-scales provided the researcher with a tool to measure respondents agreement to a
number of statements. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:253-254) asserted that
Likert- scales are "very useful devices for the researcher as they build in a degree of
sensitivity and differentiation of response whilst still generating numbers". However,
they suggested that the researcher needs to acknowledge and "be aware of their
limitations". These limitations include the possibility "that some respondents may be
deliberately falsifying their replies" and the researcher not knowing if the respondent
"wished to add any other comments about the issue under investigation".
Rubin and Babbie (1997:157-158) argued that the use of Likert-scale method enabled
the researcher to construct questions and statements to be used in a supportive way,
82
which "gives the researcher more flexibility in the design of items and can make the
questionnaire more interesting as well". However, Rubin and Babbie pointed out that the
researcher's "structuring of responses could be a disadvantage in the use of closed
questions, such as Likert-scale questions, in that the structuring of responses may
overlook some important responses".
Burns (1997:461) indicated that the advantages of Likert-scale methods of data
collection included the "ease of preparation" and the ability to collect "empirical data
regarding subject responses rather than subjective opinions" and that this increases
validity and reliability. Burns recognised that "this method produces more homogenous
scales and increases the probability that a unitary attitude is being measured". Further,
Burns suggested that a limitation of an ordinal scale is that it "makes possible the
ranking of individuals in terms of the favourableness of their attitude towards a given
object but it does not provide a basis for saying how much more favourable one is than
another".
The eleven items selected for the rating scales were drawn from research by Leithwood
and Aitken (1995) and Jantzi and Leithwood (1996) on effective leadership in schools.
Twenty-six items designed as Likert-scale statements were drawn from research by
Silins (1994), Bishop and Mulford (1996) and Leithwood and Jantzi (1997) concerning
school leadership. The items for the survey were drawn from the following six groups:
• Vision and Goals (eight items)
83
Rank-scale items Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff Likert-scale items Encourages us to develop / review individual professional growth goals consistent with school
goals/priorities Encourages teachers to work towards the same goals Works towards whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals
Gives us a sense of overall purpose Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together
B) School Culture and Climate (eleven items)
Rank-scale items Projecting a positive image to the school community Supporting teachers by being approachable Encouraging a climate of open communication Likert-scale items Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals Symbolises success/accomplishment within out profession Trusts teachers in the school Has the trust of teachers in the school Commands respect from everybody in the school Provides good role models for us to follow Leads by doing rather than telling Facilitates effective communication among staff
C) Intellectual Stimulation (seven items)
Rank-scale items Providing professional development opportunities for teachers Participating actively in curriculum development Likert-scale items Provides for professional development Encourages us to evaluate our own practices Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other Models continual learning in his or her own practice Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning
D) Individualised Support (three items)
Likert-scale items Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Provides recognition of teachers' work Is aware of my unique needs / expertise
E) Performance Expectations (six items)
84
Rank-scale items Managing change effectively Ensuring effective administrative management Providing recognition for achievement Likert-scale items Holds high expectations for students Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles Has high expectations for us as professionals
F) Structure (two items)
Likert-scale items Provides for our participation in the process of developing school goals Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals
The 11 items in each rating scale were identical but the questions relating to the items
differed. Teachers were asked to rate items in terms of the "importance of the leadership
characteristic" to them as teachers and to rate the item according to the "emphasis" given
to the leadership characteristic "by the leadership in their school".
This was designed to be able to make comparisons between the responses to the two
rating scale questions.
Nine items designed as Likert-scale statements related to decision-making. These
statements consisted of the statements from a Decision-Making Index developed by
Mulford, Kendall, Kendall, Hogan and Lamb (2001). There was a total of 46 items in
the survey.
Nine questions seeking information about the participants related to demographic
variables of Age, Gender, Teaching Level of Responsibility, and Career Aspirations. A
copy of the Survey of Teachers may be found in Appendix D.
85
B) Survey of Principals
A survey was designed to gather information about principals' perceptions of school
leadership. The survey was constructed was constructed with nine items in the form of
rating scales which were identical to the rating scale items used for the survey of
teachers. Two rating scale questions requiring respondents to rank order six areas of
school leadership in terms of the way principals acquire leadership skills. The six areas
of school leadership were identical to the six areas of school leadership used in the
survey of teachers. Nine items were designed to seek information about the participants,
which related to demographic variables of Age, Gender, Qualifications, Length of
Service, Years as a Principal, Satisfaction and Recommendation Rating of School
Principalship. A copy of the Survey of Principals may be found in Appendix E.
C) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews
In order to clarify and verify responses from the survey approximately 10% of teachers..
who completed the survey were randomly selected for interview. Interview questions
were related to the survey responses and a list of questions may be found in Appendix F.
D) Semi-structured Interviews of Senior Teachers
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers in four randomly selected
schools, who participated in the study, to investigate what characteristics they believed
that teachers valued in school leadership and how they viewed teachers' involvement in
school decision making. A list of questions may be found in Appendix G.
86
Trialing the Data Gathering Instruments
A) Survey
Trialing of the data gathering instruments was conducted in order to ensure clarity.
Mertens (1998:116) stated that "clarity is paramount" and the importance of ensuring as
much as possible that a question is structured so that "everyone is interpreting it in a
similar manner".
Polit and Hungler (1997:367) argued that if there was inadequate preparation related to
data gathering instruments "for obtaining measures" and there is ambiguity in questions
then the results achieved "may reflect this ambiguity and misunderstanding";
furthermore, they contended that due to possible ambiguity the interpretation of
questions may lead to a "distorted measure of the critical variable".
The statements in the Likert-scale and the rating scale questions were trialled in order to
ensure that meaning was clear and to remove as much as possible items that may have
been confusing, and to find out how long participants might take to complete the survey.
A trial of the surveys was conducted with ten teachers and eight principals not involved
in this study. The purpose of the trial was to ensure that questions were clear, able to be
understood and relevant to the teachers and principals. All teachers selected for the trial
were experienced teachers each of whom had held some form of leadership position in a
school. The eight principals selected for the trial had a range of experience ranging from
at least five years to near retirement.
87
As a results of the feedback from the teachers and principals undertaking the trial minor
modifications were made in relation to formatting in order to improve clarity.
B) Interviews
The interview schedules were trialled in order to find out if the questions were clear and
appropriate, and to gauge the time taken for the semi-structured interview. The trial was
conducted with teachers and senior teachers not involved in the study. The participants
were requested to provide feedback regarding clarity, terminology and relevance of the
questions to the study.
As a results of the feedback from the teachers and senior teachers undertaking the trial
minor modifications were made in relation to the time allocated for the interviews.
A copy of the interview schedules may be found in Appendix F (teachers) and Appendix
G (senior teachers).
Administration of the Data gathering Instruments
A) Teachers Survey and Principals Survey
Upon receiving official approval from the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human
Research Ethics Committee, the researcher forwarded to each principal in the selected
sChool region a letter which outlined the purpose and benefits of the study and sought
the principal's participation in the study. The letter to each principal was followed up
88
with a personal phone call. The phone call was undertaken by the researcher in order to
establish a positive relationship with the principal. Once the approval of the school
principal had been obtained the researcher arranged for the delivery of the survey
instruments. Surveys were posted to schools participating in the study, with
accompanying letters and information sheet related to the study.
In order to increase the response rate a follow-up contact with the school was conducted.
After two weeks a reminder letter was sent to the principal of each of the schools to
remind teachers about the survey. The researcher also made contact with principals by
phone to remind them about their survey. It was expected that this would prompt
potential respondents who had not yet completed the survey.
One hundred and fifty seven surveys were returned from teachers giving a response rate
of 51%. Twenty-six surveys were returned from principals giving a response rate of
81%.
B) Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews
Interviews were conducted at the interviewee's school unless the interviewee requested
a different venue, in which case an alternative suitable arrangement was made. All
interviews were audio-taped.
The interview process began with a welcome and an explanation of the interview
process. The audio-tape was then turned on and the teachers were asked a series of
questions from the relevant interview schedule.
89
Data Recording and Data Analysis
The data gathered from the Survey of Teachers and the Survey of Principals was
collated and coded as frequencies and percentages. Post-hoc analysis involved factor
analysis, t-test paired samples discrepant analysis, Mann Whitney U and ICruskall Wallis
one way ANOVA, which was undertaken using the SPSS statistical package. Data
derived from the Likert-scales was scaled as follows, Strongly Agree =5, Agree=4, Not
Sure=3, Disagree =2 and Strongly Disagree=1, and was assumed to be at the interval
level of measurement. Data from the rating-scales was also considered to be at the
interval level of measurement.
In this study, the population and the sample are the same as all teachers and all
principals in the Otago Region were accessed. In these circumstances, the parameters of
the population such as "mu" and "sigma" were used as measures in formulas
representing t-tests and analysis of variance, in order to compare the estimated
populations generated by the demographic variables (Courts, 1996; Berenson and
Levine, 1999).
The responses from the semi-structured follow-up interviews with teachers were audio-
taped and transcribed and the transcripts were analysed and coded into categories of data
related to the responses to the survey questions and to research question one and
research two.
90
The responses to the semi-structured interviews of senior teachers were also audio-taped
and transcribed and the transcripts were analysed and coded into categories of data
related to research questions one and research two.
Document and context analysis was undertaken and categories of data were grouped
according to research question one and research question two.
Validity
An emphasis on the importance of addressing issues of validity in research design is
required. According to Schumacher and McMillan (1993:223), "In order to assure others
that the procedures have validity" we must ensure that the researcher is able "to describe
the validity of the instrument used to collect the data".
Mertens (1998:294) stated that "the researcher needs to be concerned with content
validity" and that "To establish content validity, you need to review the items or tasks in
the measurement instrument". Mertens contended that "Content validity is often
established using content experts to make judgements".
The validity of a survey may be determined in terms of face validity or content validity.
Face validity and content validity are similar according to Issac and Michael (1995:125)
who suggested that the terminology is used interchangeably to indicate whether the
instrument "on the face of it, appears to measure what it claims to measure". The
difference between face validity and content validity according to Schumacher and
91
McMillan is that the "content related evidence is similar to face validity, but face
validity is a less systematic appraisal".
Burns (1997:273) described content validity as the 'sampling adequacy of the content of
a measuring instrument" and as such "is most often determined on the basis of expert
judgement". According to Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000:109) to prove content
validity "the instrument must show that it fairly and comprehensively covers the
domain" and is a "fair representation of the wider issues under investigation".
A panel of experts was used to judge the validity of the survey of teachers and the
survey of principals. The expert panel consisted of three experienced educators; one
university lecturer experienced in research, one teacher experienced in research, and one
principal with experience of at least ten years as a principal. The panel of experts judged
that the validity of the survey of teachers and the validity of the survey of principals was
appropriate.
The internal validity of research design in a case study is determined through
triangulation of data gathering techniques and the rigour of the way the research is
executed by the researcher. External validity in a research design relates to
generalisability of findings, and is not relevant to the exploratory nature of a case study,
which has low external validity (Burns, 1997:383).
92
Reliability / Dependability
The surveys used in this study were seeking the perceptions of teachers and principals.
The survey instruments were not instruments to measure phenomena therefore reliability
was not relevant. For case studies, Burns (1997:381) argued that "it is impossible to
establish reliability in the traditional sense"; what is required in case studies "is more
focused on dependability" and that "ways of establishing reliability involve
triangulation", reporting of possible bias and the ways in which the researcher made
decisions about data.
Triangulation / Cross Validation
Schumacher and McMillan (2001:407) pointed out that internal validity in case study
research design refers to the degree to which "explanations of phenomena match the
• realities of the world". The face validity of the data analysis was strengthened by the use
of multiple data collection instruments, application of the survey, interviews and
document analysis, in approximately the same time period. The findings of the survey
were cross-checked through data gathered from follow-up interviews of a random
sample of teachers who participated in the survey. A random sample of senior teachers
was interviewed to further cross-check the data acquired from the survey of teachers.
Added to these cross-checking strategies was a document analysis of in-school
correspondence. Schumacher and McMillan indicated that multi-method strategies of
data collection "permits triangulation of data across inquiry techniques". Burns
(1997:324) defined triangulation "as the use of two or more methods of data collection
in the same study of human behaviour". Burns (1997:382) suggested that "internal
93
validity is assessed through triangulation, peer judgement and re-checking with
participants".
Mertens (1998:183) argued that "triangulation involves checking information" which
may have been derived from a number of different sources "for consistency of evidence
across sources of data".
Summary
This chapter outlined the methodology used for the study. The design used for the
surveys, semi-structured follow-up interviews of teachers and semi-structured
interviews of senior teachers were also described and discussed in this chapter. As the
design for the study involved self-report data gathered from the survey and interviews,
issues of validity, reliability and triangulation were addressed. The next chapter presents,.
the data gathered for the study.
94
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to find out how teachers and principals in one specific
region of New Zealand (teaching in primary, contributing and intermediate schools)
perceived school leadership in terms of leadership style and leadership management
strategies. The three research questions selected for the study were as follows:
1. What characteristics of leadership do teachers and principals consider as important
in their school leaders?
2. How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making processes?
3. Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected by factors
such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school, position of responsibility,
experience, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with being a principal?
This chapter reports the results of the study. The chapter will be organised according
to each research question.
Research Question One: What characteristics of leadership do teachers and
principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?
A survey was administered to teachers and principals, as Likert-scales and rating scales,
(using a five point scale as "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Not Sure", "Disagree",
"Strongly Disagree") to gather data for research question one in respect of the
characteristics of leadership in schools and the importance and emphasis of leadership
95
characteristics and, in order to clarify and expand upon the survey results, teachers and
senior teachers were interviewed. The results of these surveys and interviews follow.
Characteristics of Leadership in Schools
Teachers were asked to indicate their agreement to statements about leadership
characteristics with the prefix "The school leadership in my school (Principal/Deputy
Principal/Assistant Principal)". Twenty-six Likert-scale statements were employed (see
Appendix D Question 12) related to six categories, namely: vision and goals, school
culture and climate, intellectual stimulation, individualised support, performance
expectations and structure.
Results showed that, for all six categories of leadership, a high number of teachers in
this study responded in agreement to the statements as being indicative of the leadership
in their school. The scores ranged from 92.9% to 57.9% "strongly agree/agree".
The category that received the highest number of teachers in agreement was
"performance expectations", with the two statements receiving a higher response rate of
"strongly agree" than "agree". The mean for the category "performance expectations" is
4.40. Results are shown in Table 1.
96
Table 1: Performance Expectations - Mean = 4.40 (rank order according to agreement, fre / %)
Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Holds high expectations for 89 55 1 0 144 1 10 155 4.50 students (Q7) 57.4 35.5 0.6 0 92.9 0.6 6.5 100 Has the capacity to overcome 66 77 3 2 143 5 8 156 4.29 most obstacles (Q1) . 42.2 49.4 1.9 1.3 91.7 3.2 5.1 100 Has high expectations for us as 80 60 4 0 140 4 106 154 4.40 professionals (QI8) 51.9 39.0 2.6 0 90.9 2.6 _ .5 100 _
Five statements related to the category "intellectual stimulation". Responses indicated a
high number of teachers in agreement that the school leadership "provides for
professional development" (94.2% "strongly agree/agree"). A majority of teachers
indicated agreement to the remaining statements with a range of 85.2% to 65.8% as
"strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "intellectual stimulation" is 4.03.
Results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Intellectual Stimulation - Mean = 4.03 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %)
Item SA A D SD SAJA SD/D NS Total Mean. Provides for professional 74 72 4 0 146 4 5 155 4.39 development (Q4) 47.7 46.5 2.6 0 94.2 2.6 3.2 100 Encourages us to evaluate our 53 79 6 0 132 6 17 155 4.15 own practices (Q5) 34.2 51.0 3.8 0 85.2 3.8 11.0 100 Facilitates opportunities for 43 76 19
C,
I
119 19 16 154 3.93 staff to learn from each other 27.9 49.4 12.3 77.3 12.3 10.4 100 (Q8) Models continual learning in his 50 67 11 2 117 13 25 155 3.98 or her own practice (Q21) 32.3 43.2 7.1 1.3 75.5 8.4 16.1 100 Is a source of new ideas for my 43 76 19 0 119 19 16 154 3.69 professional learning (Q17) 19.4 46.4 13.5 0 65.8 . _ 14.8 . _ 19 4 100
Eight statements related to "school culture and climate". Responses indicated that a
majority of teachers agreed with all statements, with a range of 87.7% to 68.2%
"strongly agree/agree". The mean for the category "school culture and climate" is 4.05.
Results are shown in Table 3.
97
Table 3: School Culture and Climate - Mean = 4.05 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %)
Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Shows respect for staff by 73 62 7 3 135 10 9 154 4.27 treating us as professionals 47.4 40.3 4.6 1.9 87.7 6.5 5.8 100 (Q19) Symbolises success 52 77 8 2 129 10 16 155 4.09 /accomplishment within our profession (Q10)
33.5 49.7 5.2 1.3 83.2 6.5 10.3 100
Trusts teachers in the school 65 61 7 4 126 11 19 156 4.13 (Q25) 41.6 39.1 4.5 2.6 80.7 7.1 12.2 100 Has the trust of teachers in 54 68 14 4 122 18 15 155 3.99 the school (Q6) 34.8 43.9 9.0 2.6 78.7 11.6 9.7 100 Commands respect from 54 67 11 5 121 16 18 155 3.99 everybody in the school (Q9) 34.8 43.3 7.1 3.2 78.1 10.3 11.6 100 Provides good role models 47 70 12 3 117 15 23 155 3.94 for us to .follow (Q14) 30.3 45.3 7.7 1.9 75.6 9.6 14.8 100 Facilitates effective 40 67 14 9 107 23 27 157 3.74 communication among staff 25.5 42.7 8.9 5.7 68.2 14.6 17.2 100 (Q23) Leads by doing rather than 41 75 17 4 116 21 1912. 156 3.85 telling (Q2) 26.3 48.1 10.8 2.6 74.4 13.4 2 100 _
Three statements were related to "individualised support". Responses indicated that
most teachers were in agreement with all three items in this category, with a range of
81.3% to 67.9% "strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "individualised
support" is 3.90. Results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Individualised Support - Mean = 3.90 (rank order according to agreement, fre / %)
Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Takes my opinion into 44 81 9 3 125 12 17 154 4.00 consideration when initiating actions that affect my work (Q16)
28.7 52.6 5.8 1.9 81.3 7.7 11.0 100
Provides recognition of 37 76 18 3 113 21 22 156 3.81 teachers' work (Q12) 23.7 48.8 11.5 1.9 72.5 13.4 14.1 100 Is aware of my unique needs 45 61 9 4 106 13 37 156 3.86 /expertise (Q24) 28.8 39.1 5.8 2.6 67.9 8.4 23.7 100
Five statements related to "vision and goals". Responses from teachers indicated that
most teachers agreed with all statements, with a range of 89.9% to 57.7% "strongly
98
agree/agree". The mean for the category "vision and goals" is 3.93. Results are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5: Vision and Goals - Mean = 3.93 (rank order according to agreement, freq 1%)
Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean Encourages us to develop / 55 84 7
1
0 0
139 7 9 155 4.21 review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals/priorities (Q20)
35.5 54.2 4.5 89.7 4.5 5.8 100
Encourages teachers to work 42 84 10 0 126 10 19 155 4.02 towards the same goals (Q11) 27.1 54.2 6.5 0 81.3 6.5 12.3 100 Works towards whole staff 40 78 8 3 118 11 26 155 3.93 consensus in establishing priorities for school goals
25.8 50.3 5.2 1.9 76.1 7.1 16.8 100
(Q 15) Gives us a sense of overall 47 70 7 3 117 10 29 156 3.97 purpose (Q22) 30.1 44.9 4.5 1.9 75.0 6.4 18.6 Excites us with visions of what 24 66 23 6 90 29 37 156 3.51 we may be able to accomplish if we work together (Q13)
15.4 42.3 14.8 3.8 57.7 18.6 23.7 100
Two statements were related to structure. Responses indicated that a majority of
teachers agreed with both items in this category, with a range of 90.3% to 83.4%
"strongly agree/ agree". The mean for the category "structure" is 4.00. Results are
shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Structure - Mean = 4.00 (rank order according to agreement, freq / %) Item SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total Mean
Provides for our participation 38 102 5 140 5 10 155 4.12 in the process of developing school goals (Q3)
24.5 65.8 3,2 0 90.3 3.2 6.5 100
Delegates leadership for 57 73 8
0 0
130 8 18 156 4.15 activities critical for achieving goals (Q26)
36,6 46 . 8 5.1 83.4 5.1 11.5 100
Summary: These results show that high numbers of teachers in this study from the
Otago region of New Zealand, responded in agreement that the leadership characteristics
listed as Likert-scale statements are present in the schools.
99
Importance and Emphasis of Leadership Characteristics
The importance and emphasis given to leadership characteristics in a school was the
focus of two questions (See Appendix D Questions 11 and 12 and Appendix E
Questions 10 and 11). Teachers and principals were asked to rate eleven Likert-scale
items concerning leadership characteristics, on a scale of five being high and one being
low, according to the "importance" of each item to them as a teacher / principal, and
according to how much "emphasis" they considered that the school gave to the
leadership characteristic item. The eleven items related to six areas of leadership
namely: vision and goals, school culture and climate, intellectual stimulation,
individualised support, performance expectations and structure.
Results showed that, in all but two items, principals and teachers ranked items highest in
importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item.
Three items related to Vision and Goals. Responses indicated that teachers ranked
highest in importance to them as a teacher, "fostering the development of a shared vision
for the school" (Mean = 4.52) and principals ranked highest "working jointly with staff
to accomplish school improvement goals" (Mean = 4.84). Responses regarding the
emphasis that teachers and principals considered was given to those items in the school
were lower for both groups. The item "working jointly with staff to accomplish school
improvement goals" was ranked by teachers as higher in emphasis in the school than
they ranked the item as important to them. Results are shown in Table 7.
100
Table 7: Vision and Goals - Importance I / Emphasis (E) _ Item
UE Teachers Mean No.
Principals Mean No.
Working jointly with staff to I 4.16 157 4.84 25 accomplish school improvement goals E 4.69 155 4.52 25 Fostering the development of a shared
1.-■ 4.52 157 4.72 25
vision for the school 4.10 155 4.56 25 Distributing leadership opportunities
,-I W
4.28 156 4.56 25 amongst staff 4.12 155 4.28 25
Three items related to school culture and climate. Responses indicated that teachers
ranked highest as important to them as a teacher, "encouraging a climate of open
communication" (Mean = 4.82) and principals ranked highest "supporting teachers by
being approachable" (Mean 4.83). Responses regarding the emphasis that teachers and
principals considered was given to those items in the school were lower for both groups.
The item "projecting a positive image to the school community" was ranked by teachers
as higher in emphasis in the school than they ranked the item as important to them.
Results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: School Culture and Climate - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item
LIE Teachers Mean No.
Principals Mean No.
Projecting a positive image to the school I 4.57 157 4.64 25 community E 4.59 155 4.40 25 Supporting teachers by being approachable
1-1 4.80 157 4.83 24
4.22 155 4.68 25 Encouraging a climate of open
)--, W
4.82 156 4.72 25 communication 4.01 155 4.60 25
Two items related to intellectual stimulation. Responses indicated that teachers ranked
highest as important to them as a teacher, "providing professional development
opportunities for teachers" (Mean = 4.54) and principals ranked highest "participating
101
actively in curriculum development" (Mean = 4.64). Responses regarding the emphasis that
teachers and principals considered was given in the school were lower for both groups.
Results are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Intellectual Stimulation - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item
LIE Teachers Mean No.
Principals Mean No.
Providing professional development
I-I 4.54 157 4.58 24
opportunities 4.36 155 4.56 25 Participating actively in curriculum
- w
4.42 '155 4.64 25 development 4.08 155 4.16 25
Three items related to performance expectations. Responses indicated that teachers and
principals ranked highest as important to them,"managing change effectively" (Mean =
4.53 and Mean = 4.76 respectively). Responses regarding the emphasis that teachers and
principals considered was given to this item in the school were lower for both groups.
Results are shown in Table 10.
Table 10: Performance Expectations - Importance (I) / Emphasis (E) Item
I/E Teachers Mean No.
Principals Mean No.
Managing change effectively 4.53 157 4.76 25 w 3.99 155 4.24 25 Ensuring effective administrative 4.50 157 4.40 25 management
w , 4.26 155 4.20 25
Providing recognition for achievement
- w
4.41 157 4.44 25 3.83 155 4.25 24
Discrepant Analysis
A discrepant analysis was conducted on data derived from the rating scales regarding
the "importance given" to a leadership characteristic by a teacher and "emphasis" that a
teacher considered was given to the leadership ch iaracteristic in their school.
Survey questions 11-1 to 1 1-1 1 concerning "emphasis" given to the leadership
characteristic in your school, were subtracted on a paired basis from questions 10-1 to
102
10-11, concerning "importance" of a leadership characteristic. The resulting
distribution of discrepancy scores was tested for "Goodness of Fit" using the appropriate
Chi-square Test. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference
between the distribution of the discrepancy scores and a normal distribution.
Results from the related t-tests indicate for all items, except paired item three, there is a
statistically significant difference between related "importance" items and "emphasis
given in the school" items, which suggests that, for those items, teachers do not consider
that the school gives emphasis to an item as much as they consider that the item is of
importance to them. This analysis is illustrated in Table 11 and Table 12.
Table 11: Discrepant Analysis - Group Statistics (Importance and Emphasis) Paired Samples. Mean and Standard Deviation
Item Mean N SD Pair 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (I) 4.5161 157 .6174
Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (E) 4.1032 155 .8617 Pair 2 Managing change effectively (I) 4.5355 157 .6474
Managing change effectively (E) 3.9871 155 .8826 Pair 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community (I) 4.5677 157 .6244
Projecting a positive image to the school community (E) 4.5871 155 .6912 Pair 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (I) 4.6903 157 .5649
Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (E) 4.1613 155 .8936 Pair 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable (I) 4.8000 157 .4324
Supporting teachers by being approachable (E) 4.2194 155 1.0210 Pair 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (I) 4.5260 157 .6283
Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (E) 4.3636 155 .7988 Pair 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication (I) 4.8182 156 .4194
Encouraging a climate of open communication (E) 4.0130 155 1.0352 Pair 8 Ensuring effective administrative management (I) 4.6032 157 .6584
Ensuring effective administrative management (E) 4.2645 155 .8685 Pair 9 Providing recognition for achievement (I) 4.4129 157 .7097
Providing recognition for achievement (E) 3.8323 155 1.0117 Pair 10 Participating actively in curriculum development (I) 4.4286 155 .6653
Participating actively in curriculum development (E) 4.0714 155 1.0104 Pair 11 Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (I) 4.2968 156 .7401
Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (E) 4.1161 155 .9463
103
Table 12: Discrepant Analysis - t-test (Importance and Emphasis) Paired Sam les
Item Paired Differences Mean SD
T df Sig.*
Pair 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (I) - Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school (E)
.4129 .8958 3.739 154 .000*
Pair 2 Managing change effectively (I) - Managing change effectively (E)
.5484 .9272 7.364 154 .000*
Pair 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community (I) - Projecting a positive image to the school community (E)
-.0194 .84411 -.286 154 .775
Pair 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (I) • Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals (E)
.5290 1.0339 8.370 154 .000*
Pair 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable (I) - Supporting teachers by being approachable (E)
.5806 1.0185 7.098 154 .000*
Pair 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (I) - Providing professional development opportunities for teachers (E)
.1623 1.0192 1.877 153 •050*
Pair 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication (I) - Encouraging a climate of open communication (E)
.8052 1.0811 9.158 153 .000*
Pair 8 Ensuring effective administrative management (I) - Ensuring effective administrative management (E)
.2387 1.0573 2.811 154 .006*
Pair 9 Providing recognition for achievement (I) - Providing recognition for achievement (E)
.5806 1.1502 6.285 154 .000*
Pair 10 Participating actively in curriculum development (I) - Participating actively in curriculum development (E)
.3571 1.1007 4.027 153 .000*
Pair 11 Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (I) - Distributing leadership opportunities amongst staff (E)
.1806 1.1592 1.940 154 •054*
These results show that except for the item "working jointly with staff to accomplish
school improvement goals" and "projecting a positive image to the school community"
that teachers and principals in this study give more importance to leadership
characteristics than they perceive their school giving emphasis to the leadership
characteristic. However, responses in both categories of emphasis and importance were
all above a mean for principals of 4.40 for importance and 4.16 for emphasis, and for
teachers all above a mean of 4.16 for importance and 3.83 for emphasis.
Interviews of Teachers
In order to clarify and expand upon the results of the survey, ten percent of the teachers
were randomly selected for semi-structured follow-up interviews. The questions, which
104
referred to the results of the survey, were forwarded to the teachers prior to the interview
so that they could reflect upon the results in preparation for the interview. Teachers were
asked questions which were drawn from the categories of performance expectations,
intellectual stimulation, school culture and climate, and vision and goals.
Teachers selected for the follow-up semi-structured interviews were asked to respond to two
questions relating to items drawn from the area of performance expectations.
The first question was as follows:
"In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching. Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for providing recognition for achievement and managing change effectively (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding "emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions is aware of my unique needs / expertise and provides recognition of teachers work had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?"
Responses indicated that they felt teachers wanted to be provided with recognition for .
their achievements by leaders who are aware of their individual needs
and strengths. The lower score for the item "is aware of my unique needs / expertise"
may indicate that teachers do not consider that the school leadership satisfactorily
addresses this issue.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"you need to recognise all teachers" "sometimes if you are doing a good job it is never said" "teachers see that recognition and achievement is a really needy thing" "a good leader would recognise your achievements" "we like to be told that we are wanted and needed and good" "schools are busy places and often it is overlooked" "providing recognition for achievement there is always room for improvement"
The second question was as follows:
105
"A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item: ensuring effective administrative management. How would you interpret this result?"
Responses from teachers indicated that they felt that, though teachers valued an
effective administration system, they considered that the role of the classroom teacher
was a priority. It was suggested that teachers perceived effective administrative
management as important but as this was somewhat removed from their classroom
priorities may rate this item lower through lack of interest or lack of understanding
about administration. Some typical responses were as follows.
"we are in teaching for the kids.... Administration.., is there to support us" "what happens in the classroom is more important to them" "we are not really interested in administration management" "it is probably is being done well and because its not impacting on them" "administration systems in particular systems can appear to be good" "I believe that there is an effective administration system in place"
Teachers responded to a question from the category of intellectual stimulation as
follows:
"In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for participating actively in curriculum development (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning is a source of new ideas for my professional learning and excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together, responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?"
Responses from teachers indicated that they valued active involvement in curriculum
development and looked to the school for collaborative and inspirational ways of
developing a vision for the school. A lower emphasis score for "participating actively in
curriculum development" and lower responses to the Likert-scale items "is a source of
new ideas for my professional learning and excites us with visions of what we may be
able to accomplish if we work together" may be indicative of the high expectations that
106
teachers have of curriculum development and a feeling that this is not shared by their
school leadership.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"curriculum development is really important" "Its really important to be involved" "some people are good at it and some people are not" "the vision is not presented in a way that enthuses the people to develop further" "It would be better if we had less and were able to make a better job of it" "curriculum stuff gets rated to a lower status"
Teachers were asked to respond to a question relating to items drawn from the area of school
culture and climate as follows:
"In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was supporting teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning facilitates effective communication among staff, responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree)". Why do you think teachers responded this way?
Responses from teachers indicated that they considered these results reflected the
importance that teachers placed on leaders being approachable and the need for leaders to
have open lines of communication. Perhaps this accounts for the lower score for the item
"facilitates effective communication among staff" in that teacher expectations for this item
may be higher than the attention given by the leadership in the school.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"teachers want to be supported by someone being approachable" "supporting the teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication" "as a teachers you need to know that you have the support of your principal If you are having
issues" "teachers see open communication and support system as being cooperative" "It is important to feel supported and that you can approach the leadership to sort a problem out"
107
"because they need the support of the team they all have different concerns"
Teachers responded to a question from the category of vision and goals as follows:
"A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over one third of teachers ranked importance to me as a teacher higher than emphasis given in the school for the following two items:fostering the development of a shared vision for the school and working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals. How would you interpret this result?"
Responses from teachers indicated that they felt that it was important to have the
opportunity to jointly develop school improvement goals and a shared vision for the
school. The higher importance but lower emphasis may be indicative of the higher
standards and increasing importance that teachers attach to these deliberative processes.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"we talk at lot about what our vision is and we have input in to it at meetings" "school goals and vision are good as a whole school" "Its that shared vision thing and being aware of it" "what you want is where there are visions and goals set up for the year and that you work as a team to achieve these" "we communicate and we strive for it" "It would be nice to develop that shared vision and have unique characteristics"
Interviews of Senior Teachers
Case studies were conducted in four randomly selected schools to gather data that could
clarify, expand upon and verify the responses of the survey. In the four case study
schools, senior teachers were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews of the senior
teachers focussed on the results of the survey, but in general terms rather than relating to
specific questions from the survey. The semi-structured interview questions were
forwarded to the senior teachers prior to the interview, so that they could reflect upon
108
the questions in preparation for the interview. Senior teachers were asked to give their
opinion from the perception of the teachers that they worked with.
Senior teachers selected for the semi-structured interviews were asked to respond to
questions relating to school leadership. One question was as follows:
"From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?"
Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered that teachers wanted
support and teachers also wanted reassurance and direction. Further, they were of the
view that teachers wanted assistance to improve the quality of their teaching.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"they want direction in terms of curriculum and in terms of dealing with children" "guidance and direction from those people at the top" "to be supported and given direction" "a school that has clear goals and intentions and people who can help them in their role " experience to improve the quality of their own teaching"
"they want ...direction and guidance freedom ....to experiment with teaching styles"
Senior teachers were then asked the following question:
"How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?"
Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered teachers perceived school
leadership affecting their role as a classroom teacher. Senior teachers were of the
opinion that teachers felt that the school leadership could promote confidence in
teaching and influence teachers to cope with and manage their classroom.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"leadership can play a huge role in the life of the classroom teacher" "strong leaders make strong schools" "they will be confident in their approach to teaching ...coping ...managing as a teacher" "affects the role of the teachers ...your organisation ...what the school and parents value" "if they know that they are on the right track they will be happy within their role as a teacher"
109
Senior teachers were asked the following question about SBM:
"School-based management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?"
Response from senior teachers indicated that they considered that greater teacher
involvement in the operation of the school was a positive outcome of SBM. Senior
teachers were of the opinion that teachers felt that they had more ownership of
programmes and ownership in what they do and that there was more community
involvement in what goes on in schools.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"positive the community knows a lot more about what goes on in schools" "The community is more involved" "to respond to local needs and the increased parental and local community involvement" "reflective of the communities needs and wants of families and the communities" "more ownership You can have control over what you are doing and why you are doing it" "Ownership of programmes....ownership in general" "teachers have more support are involved in school life at a more personal level"
Senior teachers were also asked the following question about the negatives of SBM:
"What do you consider to be the negatives of school based-management?"
Responses from senior teachers indicated that they considered a negative aspect of SBM
was inequality between schools, which was an outcome of differences between
communities. For some schools, factors associated with SBM were lack of financial
support and access to and availability of relevant expertise.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"it has bought a greater level of inequality to school" "the funding does not take us where we want to go" "nothing is standardised and every body has to make up their own thing" "reinventing the wheel in terms of policies and procedures in terms of school charters" "expertise and knowledge to run an effective school may not be given by the community" "the freedom is there to make decisions and to have input, the money is not"
110
Senior teachers were asked the following about the positives of SBM:
"Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response)".
Responses indicated that senior teachers, overall, were positive about SBM, in
particular, greater community involvement. They also felt that community ownership
and the ability to meet local needs were positive aspects of SBM, which outweighed
negative factors.
Some typical responses were as follows:
"Yes ! more control in the hands of the community and that has to be a positive for us" "yes because of flexibility you can meet the needs of your community" "Yes ! more control" "Yes definitely__ ownership you can work through those negatives" "I would have to say no" "No! negative aspects for principals and BOT" "it is equal but ,I guess you have to base it on your personal experience"
Information gathered from interviews with senior teachers confirmed the overall
agreement reflected in responses from teachers and principals to survey items that their
school leadership exhibited characteristics of all six transformational leadership
categories.
Document Analysis
In order to clarify and confirm results of the surveys and interviews, four randomly
selected case studies were conducted in schools. These case studies consisted of semi-
structured interviews of senior teachers and a document analysis. School documents
from these four schools were scrutinised in order to identify evidence of school
111
leadership and school decision-making processes. The school documents gathered for
analysis included the following:
• School notice book
• Curriculum and school policy planning documentation
• Staff and syndicate meeting agendas and minute records
• Staff and school newsletters
• Internal memos sent by the principal to staff members.
An analysis was undertaken and the researcher decided that the two categories that
could provide consistent evidence in document form of school leadership and school
decision-making processes, were minutes of staff meetings and memos from the
principal to staff, and these categories were selected for detailed analysis.
Analysis of the documents showed that a consistent theme in both the staff meeting
records and memos from principals to staff were references to inviting teachers' opinion
and asking for them to provide feedback, for example teachers were invited to share
their opinions related to coordination and planning, invitations to be involved in
leadership responsibility, invitations and opportunities to be involved in school
curriculum committees. In the four case study schools, staff meeting agendas and minute
records showed evidence of a mode of communication employed by the school
leadership which reflected consultative and collaborative ways of working with teachers
in the school. The evidence of consultative language supports responses from teachers in
the survey which ranked as high the importance to them as a teacher and emphasis given
112
in the school to the items of "encouraging a climate of open communication" and
" working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals".
Principals were asked to examine and identify whether or not they considered that there
was a sequence in the way that they acquired and should use leadership skills /
characteristics. Results showed that half of the principals (53.8%) considered that there
was a sequence in the way that principals acquired leadership skills. A little under half
of the principals (46.2%) did not consider that there was a sequence in the way that
principals acquired these skills. However, analysis of responses from principals who
considered that there was a sequence that they used to acquire and use leadership skills,
showed no discernible pattern. This result could have occurred because of the small
number of principals involved in the study.
Summary of Research Question One.
Teachers were asked to indicate their agreement with statements about leadership
characteristics. Results showed that teachers agreed with the items in each category as
being indicative of leadership in their school. The agreement ranged from a mean of
4.40, for the category 'performance expectations', to a mean of 3.90 for the category
'individualised support', "strongly agree/agree".
Teachers and principals were also asked to rate eleven items concerning leadership
characteristics, on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the
113
"importance" of each item to them as a teacher / principal, and according to how much
"emphasis" they considered that the school gave to the leadership characteristic item.
Results showed that, in all but two items, principals and teachers ranked items highest in
importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item, but generally
the rankings were high for both importance and emphasis. Responses from follow-up
interviews with teachers and interviews with senior teachers in four case study schools
confirmed these results.
Research Question Two: How do teachers perceive their engagement in school
decision-making processes?
Decision-making was the focus of nine Likert-scale statements. Teachers were asked to
respond to nine statements that were drawn from the Mulford et al. Decision -making
Index (2001). Responses showed agreement that" teachers have adequate opportunity to
participate in the development of the school's goals and plans" and
"teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the school" (91.0% and
81.2% respectively). Teachers agreed that "decision-making is characterised by
collaborative, cooperative and consultative processes" (67.5%), and that "all members of
the school community have adequate opportunities to participate in decision-making"
(66.9%).
Teachers disagreed that" the values of teaching staff and the goals of management are
often in conflict" and" that the school management restricts the ability of individual
teachers to determine teaching practices and methods" (79.3% and 78.6% respectively)
114
and they disagreed that "the decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome"
(65.6%).
Teacher's responses were inconclusive to two items that " the overall management style
could be described as top down decision-making" and "at this school collegial decision-
making takes precedence over executive management" (36.6%142.9% and 35.7%/30.5%
respectively).
Results are shown in Table 13
115
Table 13: Decision-making Index (in Rank Order for Agreement) Item Freq
% SA A D SD SA/A SD/D NS Total
In general teachers have adequate opportunity to participate in the development of the school's goals & plans
Freq %
50 32.6
90 58.4
6 3.9
1 0.6
140 91.0
7 4.5
7 4.5
154 100
In general teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the school
Freq %
44 28.6
81 52.6
13 8.4
2 1.3
125 81.2
15 9.7
14 9.1
154 100
Decision-making is characterised by collaborative, cooperative and consultative processes
Freq %
29 18.8
75 48.7
22 14.3
2 1.3
104 67.5
24 15.6
26 16.9
154 100
All members of the school community have adequate opportunities to participate in decision-making
Freq %
37 24.0
66 42.9
14 9.1
2 1.3
103 66.9
16 104
35 22.7
154 100
The overall management style could be described as "Top Down" decision-making
Freq %
19 12.3
39 25.3
46 29.9
20 13.0
58 37.6
66 42.9
30 19.5
154 100
At this school collegial decision-making takes precedence over executive management
Freq %
12 7.8
432 7.9
38 24.7
9 5.8
55 35.7
47 30.5
52 33.8
154 100
The decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome Freq
% 5 3.2
25 16.3
76 49.4
26 16.2
30 19.5
102 65.6
23 14.9
155 100
The school management restricts the ability of individual teachers to determine teaching practices and methods
Freq %
3 1.9
16 10.4
785 0.7
432 7.9
19 12.3
121 78.6
14 9.1
154 100
The values of teaching staff and the goals of management are often in conflict
Freq %
5 3.2
13 8.4
77 50.0
45 29.3
18 11.6
122 79.3
14 9.1
154 100
A Decision-Making Index was calculated. The D-M I contains five items that describe a
positive approach to decision-making and four items that indicate a negative attitude to
decision-making. The negatively loaded items were recoded so that the D-M I when
calculated shows only positive values (Mulford, Kendall, Kendall, Hogan and Lamb,
2001). The mean score for the D-M I were 3.70. Results are shown in Table 14.
116
Table 14 illustrates the distribution of scores of the Decision-making Index. A Chi-
square Goodness of Fit test indicates that there is no statistically significant difference
between this distribution and a normal distribution, at the 0.05 level of confidence.
Table 14:
30 "
20
10 • >, C) 0 C) 0 co C)
. . . . 1.75 225 2.75 325 3.75 425 4.75
2130 250 300 350 400 450 500
Std .Dev =15 7
Mean =3.70
N=1 53
Decision-making Index
Generally, the results of the D-MI indicate that teachers are favourably disposed toward
the decision-making processes in the schools in the Otago Region.
Interviews of Senior Teachers
Senior teachers in the four case study schools were asked to respond to a question about
decision-making. This question was intended to seek the viewpoints that senior teachers
117
had formed from their experience in working with teachers in the school. Senior
teachers were asked their opinion of the way teachers perceived decision-making in the
school: "From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school
decision-making?"
Senior teacher responses indicated that they felt teachers had the opportunity for a high
level of involvement in school decision-making. Some typical responses were as
follows:
"teachers in this school are very involved in school decision-making" "they have the opportunity at our school to be involved in decision-making" "more involvement in school decision-making and the opportunity is there" "teachers' involvement in decision-making has been huge" "Sometimes teachers feel that their view has not been heard" "a lot varies according to the decision that has to be made"
Document Analysis
Analysis of the documents showed that teachers were kept informed by the school
leadership about specific issues related to the school, the opportunity for teachers to
provide input into school developmental planning and collaborative ways of working.
Examples of these included feedback from the school leadership relating to school board
of trustee issues, ongoing opportunities for teacher input into school planning and
leadership establishing cooperative processes. The evidence of teachers' involvement in
school decision-making processes supports responses from teachers in the survey who
strongly agreed / agreed that "in general teachers have opportunity to participate in the
school goals and plans" and "in general teachers are kept well informed about major
issues".
118
Summary of Research Question Two
Results of the Decision-making Index, responses from Senior Teachers, and the results
of the Document Analysis, indicated that teachers in this study perceived themselves as
being involved in decision-making in their school.
Research Question Three: Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school
leadership affected by factors such as of gender, age, qualifications, type of school,
position of responsibility, experience, teacher leadership aspirations and
satisfaction with being a principal?
The Survey of Teachers and the Survey of Principals contained questions which sought
information about the respondents regarding gender, age, qualifications, years of
teaching, type of school, years in current school, years taught or years as a principal,
number of principals worked for, teacher leadership aspirations and satisfaction with
being a principal.
Responses showed most of the teachers are female and hold a Bachelor of Education
degree and most of the principals are male and hold a Diploma in Education. Results are
presented in Tables 15 and 16.
119
Table 15:Gender Teachers and Principals Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %
Male 34 21.8 18 69.2 Female 122 78.2 8 30.8 Total 156 100 26 100
Table 16: Oualifications Teachers and Principals Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %
Certificate 20 12.7 2 7.7 Diploma 36 22.9 12 46.3 Bachelor 97 61.8 6 . 23.0 Master 4 2.6 6 23.0 Total 157 100 26 100
Information was sought from principals regarding their age. Responses indicated that over two thirds of principals (65.6%) were 46 years or older. Results are shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Age of Principals Item Freq % Up to 45 years 9 34.4 46 years — 55 years 11 42.7 55 years and above 6 22.9 Total 26 100.0
There were three types of schools involved in the study, twelve primary (years one to
eight), five intermediate (years seven and eight) and fifteen contributing (years one to
six) schools. Results for a question asking teachers to identify the type of school they
were teaching in showed that teachers were evenly spread between primary schools and
contributing schools (42.9% and 42.9% respectively, with a small number of teachers
from intermediate schools (14.2%). A little over half of the principals were in a
120
contributing school with one third (34.6%) from a primary school. Results are shown in
Table 18.
Table 18: Tvne of school Teachers Principals Freq. % Freq. %
Primary 67 42.9 9 34.6 Contributing 67 42.9 14 53.8 Intermediate 22 14.2 3 11.6 Total 156 100 26 100
Information was sought regarding the level of leadership responsibility of a teacher
responding to the survey as either a deputy principal, assistant principal, senior teacher
or basic scale teacher. More than half the teachers reported being a basic scale teacher
(56.6%). Of the remaining group most were senior teachers (26.6%). Results are shown
in Table 19.
Table 19: Position of Responsibility Item Freq % Deputy Principal 19 12.3 Assistant Principal • 7 4.5 Senior Teacher 41 26.6 Basic Scale Teacher 88 56.6 Total 155 100.0
Information was sought regarding the years the respondent had been in the current
school, the number of principals the teacher had worked for and the total years of
teaching experience. Responses indicated that three quarters of the teachers responding
had been in their current school for three years to eight years (74.6%) and nearly half for
121
less than three years (49.0%). Nearly two-thirds of teachers had worked for four or more
principals (57.9%) and nearly half of teachers had taught for ten years or less (50.3%).
Responses are shown in Tables 20, 21 and 22.
Table 20: Years in Current School (Teachers) Item Freq % Up to 3 years 7 49.0 3 - 8 years 40 25.6 9 — 14 years 20 12.7 15 years or more 20 12.7 Total 157 100.0
Table 21: Number of Principals (Teachers) Item Freq % 1.00 21 13.4 2.00 26 16.6 3.00 19 12.1 4.00 17 10.8 5.00 22 14.0 6.00 52 33.1 Total 157 100.0
Table 22: Years Taught (Teachers) Item Freq % Up to 10 years 79 50.3 11 years — 20 years 34 21.7 20 years or more 44 28.0 Total 157 100.0
Information was sought from principals regarding their years as a principal, how long
they had been in their current school and total years of teaching experience. Responses
showed that over three-quarters of them (77%) had 20 years or less experience. Over
half of the principals (57.7%) had been in their current school for up to seven years and
over two thirds of principals had taught for between 16 to 30 years. Results are shown in
Tables 23 to 25.
122
Table 23: Years as a Principal Item Freq % Up to 10 years 10 38.5 11 years — 20 years 10 38.5 21 years or more 6 23.0 Total 26 100.0
Table 24: Years in Current School (Principal) Item Freq Up to 7 years 15 57.7 8 years — 16 years 8 30.8 17 years or more 3 11.5 Total 26 100.0
Table 25: Years Taught (Principal) Item Freq % Up to 15 years 3 11.5 16 years — 30 years 18 69.2 31 years or more 5 19.3 Total 26 100.0
Information was sought regarding teachers aspirations to become a principal. Eighty
three percent of teachers indicated that they do not aspire to become principals. Results
are shown in Table 26.
Table 26: Aspirations for Princi alshi Item Freq % Yes 26 16.9 No 128 83.1 Total 154 100.0
Information was sought from teachers to provide a reason for their response to the
question related to their aspirations for the principalship. Over two thirds of teachers
(61.7%) believed that they could do the job as principal but becoming a principal was
not part of their career plan. Results are shown in Table 27.
123
Table 27: Reason for Aspiration (Teachers) Item Freq %
I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan
82 61.7
I do not believe that I have the capacity to become a principal
18 13.5
No matter how capable I am, I do not believe that I would be appointed to a position as principal
5 3.8
Other reason 28 21
Total 133 100.0
Information was sought regarding respondents' level of satisfaction with being a
principal and if they would recommend the principalship to others. The majority of
principals (88.5% and 84.6% respectively) provided a satisfaction rating of (4) and (5)
on a five point scale and would recommend the principal ship to others. Results are
shown in Tables 28 and 29.
Table 28: Satisfaction with being a Principal Item Freq % Very dissatisfied (1) 0 0.0
(2) 0 0.0 (3) 3 11.5 (4) 14 53.9
Very satisfied (5) 9 34.6 Total 26 100.0
Table 29: Recommend Principalship to others Item Freq % Yes 22 84.6 No 4 15.4 Total 26 100.0
124
A Chi-square Goodness of Fit was used to examine the distribution of the responses of
teachers to the 26 Likert-scale items on the Survey of Teachers. This examination
indicated that the distribution of scores on each of the items was statistically
significantly different from a normal distribution, at the 0.05 level of significance.
Statistical tests used in this situation were non-parametric, namely, Mann Whitney U
and Kruskall Wallace One-way ANOVA. Scoring on these items was reported as
frequencies and means, as the level of measurement at which data was collected was
interval.
The following variables: gender, qualifications, type of school, position of
responsibility, years taught in the current school, years taught before this year, number
of principals worked for and aspiration to be a principal were independent variables. The
dependent variables used in the study were the items in the rating scale questions and
the Likert-scale questions. No significant differences were found using a Mann Whitney
U and Kruskall Wallace ANOVA.
The total scores in the D-MI were used in the above calculations. Each individual item
of the D-MI was examined and no differences were found.
Summary of Research Question Three
Research question three sought information from teachers and principals regarding
gender, years of experience and the type of school that they were currently employed in.
125
Responses showed that the majority of teachers in the survey were female while the
majority of principals were male. Most teachers held a Bachelors degree, males and
females were evenly represented, and the majority of teachers taught in the years one to
six area. On the other hand, the majority of principals held a diploma qualification and
most were in a Contributing school, that is involved in years one to six. The greatest
percentage of teachers were classified as basic scale teachers and they indicated that
they had no aspiration to become principals even though they considered that they could
do the job of a principal. The majority of principals, however, responded with a high
satisfaction rating with being a principal and would recommend the principalship to
others.
Post Hoc Tests: Factor Analysis
The survey contained six conceptual sets, which were as follows: Vision and Goals,
Intellectual Stimulation, School Culture and Climate, Performance Expectations,
Individualised Support and Structure. Each of these conceptual sets was factor analysed
in order to provide evidence of semantic and mathematical congruence.
The major purpose of the factor analysis was to provide evidence for the validity of the
categories of items selected for the survey. The items in the categories of "Vision and
Goals", "Intellectual Stimulation" and "School Culture and Climate" each loaded highly
(from .615 to .884) on the categories and arranging themselves in factors (1+2)
according to whether they were scaled as Likert-scales or ranked scales. In the category
126
"Performance Expectation" the items, whether Likert-scale or ranked-scales, loaded
highly on one factor, as did the categories "Individual Support" and "Structure".
Vision and Goals
Eight items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Vision and Goals". Five of
these items were structured as Likert scales.
Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together Gives us a sense of overall purpose Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals Encourages teachers to work toward the same goals Distributing leadership opportunities among staff
Three items were structured as rating scales. Distributing leadership opportunities among staff Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school
The eight items for Vision and Goals loaded on two factors: one factor contained the
five Likert-scale items, which loaded from .633 to .870 on the factor, and factor two
contained the three ranked scale items which loaded from .627 to .745 on the factor.
Together these eight items accounted for 59.342 percent of the total variance. These
calculations are shown in Table 30a and 30b.
127
Table 30a: Factor One Vision and Goals (Total Variance Explained) Vision and Goals: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.183 39.791 39.791 2 1.564 19.551 59.342
Table 30b: Vision and Goals Component
1 2 Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together
.870
Gives us a sense of overall purpose .858 Works toward whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals
.812
Encourages teachers to work toward the same goals .755 Encourages is to develop/review individual professional growth goals consistent with school goals/priorities
.633
Distributing leadership opportunities among staff .745 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals
.730
Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school
.627
Intellectual Stimulation
Seven items were selected to represent a concept namely: " Intellectual Stimulation".
Five of these items were structures as Likert-scales.
Models continual learning in his/her own practice Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other Encourages us to evaluate our own practices Provides for professional development
Two items were structures as rating scales. Providing professional development opportunities Participating actively in curriculum development
The seven items used for Intellectual Stimulation loaded on two factors: one factor
contained the five Likert-scale items which loaded from .643 to .829 on the factor, and
128
factor two contained the two rating scale items which loaded .796 and .815 on the factor.
Together these seven items accounted for 58.903 percent of the total variance. These
calculations are shown in Table 31a and 31b.
Table 31a: Factor Intellectual Stimulation (Total Variance Explained) Intellectual Stimulation: Extraction of Sums of Squared
% of Variance Loadings
Cumulative % Component Total 1 2.779 39.703 39.703 2 1.344 19.200 58.902
Table 31b: Intellectual Stimulation Component
1 2 Models continual learning in his/her own practice .829 Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning .796 Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other
.771
Encourages us to evaluate our own practices .660 Provides for professional development .643 Providing professional development opportunities .815 Participating actively in curriculum development .796
School Culture and Climate
Eleven items were selected to represent a concept namely: "School Culture and
Climate".
Eight of these items were structures as Likert-scales items.
Has the trust of teachers in the school Facilitates effective communication among staff Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals Provides good role models for us to follow Trusts teachers in the school Leads by doing rather than telling Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession Commands respect from everybody in the school
Three of these items were structured as rating scale items. Encouraging a climate of open communication
129
Supporting teachers by being approachable Projecting a positive image to the school community
The eleven items for used for School Culture and Climate loaded on two factors: one
factor contained the eight Likert-scale items, which loaded from .733 to .884 on the
factor, and factor two contained the three rating scale items which loaded from .615 to
.754 on the factor. Together these eleven items accounted for 61.866 percent of the total
variance. These calculations are shown in Table 32a and 32b.
Table 32a: Factor School Culture and Climate (Total Variance Explained) School Culture and Climate: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings
Cumulative % Component Total % of Variance 1 5.321 48.375 48.375 2 1.484 13.491 61.866
Table 32b: School Culture and Climate Component
1 2 Has the trust of teachers in the school .884 Facilitates effective communication among staff .851 Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals .839 Provides good role models for us to follow .831 Trusts teachers in the school .816 Leads by doing rather than telling .780 Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession
.735
Commands respect from everybody in the school .733 Encouraging a climate of open communication .754 Supporting teachers by being approachable .710 Projecting a positive image to the school community .615
Performance Expectations
Six items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Performance Expectations".
Three items were structured as Likert-scales
Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles Holds high expectations for students
130
Has high expectations for us as professionals Three items were structured as rating scales.
Providing recognition for achievement Ensuring effective administrative management Managing change effectively
These two sets of items factored together on one factor which loaded from .676 to .760
on the factor. Together these six items accounted for 51.148 percent of the total
variance. These calculations are shown in Table 33a and 33b.
Table 33a: Factor Performance Expectations (Total Variance Explained) Performance Expectations: Extraction of Sums of S uared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 3.069 51.148 51.148
Table 33b: Performance Expectations Component Providing recognition for achievement .760 Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles .741 Holds high expectations for students .714 Has high expectations for us as professionals .699 Ensuring effective administrative management .698 Managing change effectively .676
Individualised Support
Three items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Individualised Support".
These items were structured as Likert-scales.
Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Is aware of my unique needs /expertise Provides recognition of teachers work
This set of three items loaded on one factor which loaded from .629 to .857 on the
factor. These three items accounted for 71.866 percent of the total variance. These
calculations are shown in Table 34a and 34b.
131
Table 34a: Factor Individualised Support (Total Variance Explained) Individualised Support: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 2.156 71.866. 71.866
Table 34b: Individualised Support Component
.857 Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work Is aware of my unique needs /expertise .857 Provides recognition of teachers work .829
Structure
Two items were selected to represent a concept namely: "Structure". These items were
structured as Likert-scales.
Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals Provides for our participation in the process of developing schools goals
This pair of items loaded on one factor which loaded from .860 to .860 on the factor.
These two items accounted for 73.951 percent of the total variance. These calculations
are shown in Table 35a and 35b.
Table 35a: Factor Structure (Total Variance Explained)
Structure: Extraction of Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 1.479 73.951 73.951
Table 35b: Structure Component Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals .860
.860 Provides for our participation in the process of developing schools goals
132
Summary of Chapter Four
This chapter has presented the results of the teacher survey of school leadership, the
principal survey of school leadership, the semi-structured follow-up interviews of
teachers, and from case studies conducted in four schools, semi-structured interviews of
senior teachers, and a document analysis.
Results have shown prominent support for the school leadership as exhibiting
characteristics of leadership that are congruent with transformational leadership and
engagement in decision-making. In the next chapter results will be discussed,
conclusions drawn and recommendations made.
133
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate how teachers and principals in one specific
region of New Zealand, perceived school leadership, in terms of leadership style and
leadership management strategies. The three research questions selected for the study
were as follows:
What characteristics of leadership do teachers and principals consider as important and as being given emphasis in their school?
How do teachers perceive their engagement in school decision-making processes?
Are teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership affected by factors such as gender, qualifications, type of school, experience, age, aspirations and satisfaction?
This chapter presents a discussion of the results together with recommendations for
further research. The chapter is organised according to the three research questions,
followed by discussion and recommendations.
Importance and Emphasis of Characteristics of Leadership
Research question one sought information from teachers about their level of agreement
to statements about leadership in their school and also sought information from both
teachers and principals about characteristics of leadership that they considered as
important and given emphasis in their schools.
The questions in the surveys were based on six transformational leadership
characteristics drawn from research by Leithwood and Aitken (1995) and Jantzi and
134
Leithwood (1996). These transformational leadership characteristics were performance
expectations, structure, intellectual stimulation, school culture and climate,
individualised support, vision and goals. The high degree of agreement found in the
study signifies that these transformational leadership characteristics are reflected in the
leadership practices experienced by the teachers in the schools in this study.
The category "performance expectations" was rated highest overall by teachers with
responses of 90% and above. These results reflect previous research which shows that
high readiness schools are proactive and school leaders have high expectations of
teachers (Hipp and Huffman, 2000). The category that achieved the lowest overall level
of agreement was "vision and goals".
The importance of the characteristics of school leadership and the emphasis given to
them in a school was the focus of a question for both teachers and principals. Results
showed that in all but one item, principals and teachers ranked items highest in
importance than they ranked the school as giving emphasis to that item. Responses
indicated that teachers ranked highest as important to them as a teacher "encouraging a
climate of open communication" (mean = 4.82) and "supporting teachers by being
approachable" (mean = 4.80), whereas principals ranked highest "supporting teachers by
being approachable" (mean = 4.83) and "working jointly with staff to accomplish school
improvement goals" (mean = 4.84). The results showed that teachers and principals in
this study give more importance to leadership characteristics than they perceive their
school giving emphasis to the leadership characteristic, and there is a high level of
135
agreement between teachers and principals in their responses. A discrepant analysis
showed that, except for one item, there was a statistically significant difference between
paired items of "importance" and "emphasis given in the school" which suggests that,
for those items, teachers do not consider that the school gives emphasis to an item as
much as they consider that the item is of importance to them. It should be noted that
rankings were high for most items. The leadership characteristics perceived by teachers
in this study, who have experienced fourteen years of SBM, seem to reflect the findings
of previous research which suggest that SBM promotes the development of
transformational leadership in schools (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996; Blase and Blase,
1999).
The high level of agreement from teachers, that the school leadership of the schools in
this study exhibited characteristics relating to a positive school climate suggests that.
these schools would have high levels of collaboration and trust (Blase and Blase, 1999)
and would be likely to foster the development of learning communities (Hipp and
Huffman, 2000; Kowalski et al, 1992).
Teachers reported a high level of agreement that the school leadership "shows respect
for staff by treating us as professionals" (87.7%) and "takes my opinion into
consideration when initating actions that affect my work" (81.3%). These results reflect
results of previous research related to the high value teachers place on interpersonal
skills and school culture (Lam, 2002). Further, the high level of agreement regarding the
leadership characteristics of school leadership indicates that, from the findings of
136
previous research, teachers would perceive their principal as a positive and effective
leader (Jantzi and Leithwood, 1996).
The highly favourable results obtained in this study suggest that SBM and the
devolution of decision-making through the school has been effective. However, in the
experience of the researcher, these results could also reflect the management structure in
place in New Zealand primary, contributing and intermediate schools, which provide a
greater number of positions of responsibility for teachers to occupy. The flexibility for
the school leadership to distribute what was formerly regarded as a senior leadership
position of responsibility into management units has meant that many teachers have had
the opportunity to experience and become involved in a school leadership responsibility,
and to be rewarded for it where previously this may not have been the case. It is also the
experience of the researcher that most classroom (base level) teachers in New Zealand
primary, contributing and intermediate schools have some school responsibilities in
addition to their classroom teaching which has brought them directly into the leadership
and decision-making arena.
It should be noted that the respondents to this survey reflect the ratio of management
positions to basic scale teachers positions. This ratio would be congruent with the ratio
that exists in primary, contributing and intermediate schools throughout New Zealand.
The overall results of this research study reflect previous findings regarding the
significant change that has taken place in New Zealand schools with the introduction of
SBM and the ongoing development of positive partnerships between school
137
professionals (Wylie, 1999). Wylie's research (1999:3) related to the introduction of
SBM in New Zealand, and showed that a considerable investment was made by those
involved at the school level to make SBM a reality. While pressure and stress existed in
schools between those engaged in new roles, partnerships were being developed and
roles and relationships were being forged and broadened to a far greater extent than
what was initially perceived by the designers of the SBM reforms. Wylie (1999:4) also
noted that while the educational reforms were designed to reduce inequalities and to
improve educational opportunities and achievement, SBM did not seem able to achieve
this. On the other hand, research indicates that while school principals support the
consultative management style associated with SBM, the processes are not being seen to
be distributed beyond the principal, and teachers do not perceive themselves to have
involvement in democratic processes (Mulford, Kendall and Kendall, 2003).
Teacher Engagement in Decision-making
Research question two sought information about the way that teachers perceive their
involvement in decision-making in the school. The items concerning decision-making
were drawn from a decision-making Index (D-M I) identified by Mulford et al, (2000).
The D-M I consisted of nine items. The overall scores indicated a general level of
agreement with items. Responses by teachers to seven of these nine items indicated that
according to the D-M I, teachers perceive themselves as being involved in the decision-
making process in the school. Responses to the remaining two items were inconclusive
with responses spread between options.
138
In the experience of the researcher, teachers in New Zealand schools report being part of
the decision-making team and that their voice is heard by those who are required to
make decisions. However, New Zealand research (Wylie, 1999) shows that assessment
and budget allocations were areas where some teachers felt that their input into decision-
making was not sought. Senior teachers and those who aspired to positions of
responsibility were also more likely to feel that they did not have access to the
information they required for their work, or felt left out of the school decision-making
processes. Likewise Wylie felt that teachers who were not properly consulted, or
provided with sufficient information on matters affecting their work, were also more
likely to feel that they were excluded from the school decision-making processes.
The results of the study support research showing that where teachers are involved in
"establishing a shared vision" then shared leadership and participative decision-making
contribute towards overall team effectiveness (Gelzheiser et al, 2001:301). A high level
of agreement was reported by teachers in the study regarding their involvement in the
development of school goals and plans and this supported the contention that where the
school leadership facilitates the focussing of teams on goals, self management is
enhanced (Short, 1994).
The involvement of teachers in decision-making processes and the attentiveness of the
school leadership to the dimensions of school organisation are regarded as important
qualities in school leadership research (Beck and Murphy; 1998; Henkin, Cistone and
Dee, 2000; Dee et al, 2002). There are clear indications in the results of this study that
139
teachers perceived themselves to be involved in decision-making and school
organisation. It is the experience of the researcher, that in New Zealand the introduction
of SBM meant that teachers had to develop partnerships with school leadership teams
and the community.
Previous research indicates that decision-making delegation being dispersed and
distributed beyond the leadership of the school, and support for shared governance,
develops trust and promotes a high degree of collaboration and cooperation in a school
(Blase and Blase, 1999; Klein, 2003). In the experience of the researcher, in the New
Zealand context, the flexibility that the school leadership has to distribute management
units to a number of teachers along with most teachers having responsibilities beyond
their immediate classroom, has developed and supported teacher involvement in school
decision-making. It is the view of the researcher that this may have assisted in the
growth and development of trust, collaboration and cooperation amongst teachers and
the school leadership. This in part could explain the favourable results obtained in this
study where positive partnerships have been formed between the different tiers of school
professionals.
In contrast to the study undertaken by Mulford, Kendall and Kendall (2003) where
results indicated that increased commitment was not matched by involvement in
democratic processes, a significant finding of this research study is that overall teachers
have a greater degree of involvement in school democratic processes. However, this
study is consistent with results of the D-MI research undertaken by Mulford et al (2003)
140
which measured teachers' attitudes to the decision-making processes in primary schools,
and found that where teachers are empowered and involved in areas which are perceived
to be of importance to them, they are likely to be more assured in the way that the
school is organised. Research studies indicate the importance of teachers' involvement
in the democratic processes associated with SBM and school leaders need to ensure that
these processes move beyond the immediate school leadership and are in place
throughout the school. The results of this study confirm earlier New Zealand research
that indicates school professionals have a greater degree of freedom with decision-
making (Wylie, 1999) and confirms international research where changes in governance
structures are supported by effective decision-making practices (Robertson and Briggs,
1998).
Individual Characteristics of Teachers and Principals
Information was sought regarding individual characteristics of teachers and principals so
that comparisons could be made, according to a particular characteristic. Information
was sought from teachers and principals responding to the survey regarding gender, age,
qualifications years of teaching or years as a principal, type of school, years in current
school and the number of principals worked for. As well, teachers were asked to indicate
whether they aspired to be principals or not and to respond to options as a reason for
their opinion. Principals were asked to indicate how satisfied they were in their role and
as to whether they would recommend others to become a principal.
141
Analysis of responses revealed that most teachers were female and had a Bachelor
degree, and most principals were male and had a Diploma qualification. An explanation
for teachers holding predominantly degree qualifications in contrast to principals
holding a diploma qualification may be accounted for by the New Zealand tertiary
institutions, and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, establishing new degree
qualification pathways and phasing the trained teacher certificate qualification (TTC).
Teachers who entered the profession and undertook pre-service teacher training prior to
1990 are more likely to have diploma qualifications. In contrast more recent graduates
are likely to have a Bachelor degree. Degree qualifications are now more accessible in
New Zealand and students in training as well as teachers undertaking professional
development are more likely to aspire to a degree qualification.
Two-thirds of the principals surveyed were 45 years of age or older and the majority
indicated both a high satisfaction rating with being a principal and would recommend
the principalship to others. However, half of the teachers had taught for ten years or less,
nearly two-thirds of the teachers had worked for four or more principals and over three-
quarters of teachers had no aspiration to become a principal. In spite of this, nearly two-
thirds believed that they could do the job of principal but becoming a principal was not
part of their career plan. These responses identify and signal a forthcoming succession
problem for the principalship in that while the majority of principals are over 45 years of
age, highly satisfied with being a principal, and would recommend the principalship to
others, the majority of teachers have no aspiration to follow in their footsteps. This lack
of aspiration to be a principal was further supported by teachers responses from the
142
semi-structured follow-up interviews where they articulated their desire to retain a work
and lifestyle balance and were increasingly aware of the responsibilities, accountabilities
and pressures faced by principals. In interview, teachers expressed the view that the
reason why they entered the profession was to work with children and becoming a
principal would move them further away from classroom work.
Analysis was undertaken in order to compare the populations generated by the
demographic variables. Results showed no significant differences between populations
based on the demographic variables used in this study. Generally, the perception of the
subjects in the study were favourable to very favourable of the leadership of their
schools. This high level of satisfaction could have accounted for the fact that no
significant differences were found between responses of participants according to the
demographic variables.
The highly favourable results regarding school leadership in the Otago region, reported
in this study, may be partly attributed to the way in which teachers involved in the study
have, in a relatively short duration, been exposed to working with a number of different
principals.
The opportunity to observe and work with a variety of different school principals may
have allowed the teachers the opportunity to be mentored, to be exposed to and observe
differing leadership styles and to develop collaborative and interdependent ways of
working together.
143
The findings of this study suggest that, after 14 years of SBM, school leadership is
perceived by teachers and principals in the Otago region as being participative, fostering
decision-making and supporting professional development. The transformational
leadership categories of performance expectations, vision and goals, intellectual
stimulation, school climate and culture, individualised support, and structure were seen
as being indicative of the leadership in their schools.
Recommendations for Future Research
Several recommendations are made regarding issues for future research in the area of
teachers' and principals' perceptions of school leadership. These recommendations are
as follows:
• Further research be undertaken in other school districts in order to see whether
these results are reflected more widely in the New Zealand education system.
• Responses to questions investigating the ways in which principals acquired
leadership skills were inconclusive. Further research should be undertaken in
order to explore the process by which principals learn leadership skills.
• The decision-making index should be utilised in research projects concerning
school organisation and leadership.
• Research should be undertaken to investigate ways in which teachers can be inspired,
encouraged and supported to consider principal leadership roles as part of their career
aspirations.
144
REFERENCES
Alcorn, N. (1993). Challenges to school leadership in the new climate of New Zealand
Education. The Canadian Administrator, 32 (4), 1-8.
Barnett, K., McCormick, J. and Conners, R. (2001). Transformational leadership in
schools- panacea, placebo or problem? Journal of Educational Administration, 39 (1),
24-35.
Beare, H. (1991). Restructuring school management. The Australian College of
Education: Canberra.
Beck, G. and Murphy, J. (1998). Site-based management and school success:
Untangling the variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9 (4), 358-385.
Berenson, M.L. and Levine, D.M. (1996). Basic Business Statistics: Concepts and
Applications (7 th Ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Bishop, P.W. and Mulford, W.R. (1996). Empowerment in four Australian primary
schools: They don't really care. International Journal of Educational Reform.
5,193-204.
Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school leadership: The teachers' perspective.
American Educational Research Journal, 24 (4), 589-610.
Blase, J. and Blase, J. (1999). Implementation of shared governance for instructional
improvement: Principals' perspectives. Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (5),
476-485.
145
Blase, J. and Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership teachers' perspectives
on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational
Administration, 38 (2), 130-140.
Brown, D. (1990). Decentralisation and school-based management. East Sussex:
Falmer Press.
Brown, D. (1995). The sabotage of school-based management. The School Administrator, March 8-14.
Brown, M., Boyle, B. and Boyle, T. (1999). Commonalities between perception and
practice in models of school decision-making in secondary schools. School Leadership
and Management, 19(3), 319-330.
Burns, R. (1997). Introduction to research methods (3rd edition). Sydney: Longman.
Busher, H. and Harris, A. (2000). Subject leadership and school improvement. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Campbell-Evans, G. (1993). A values perspective on school-based management. In C.
Ditnmock (Ed.), School-Based Management and School Effectiveness. London:
Routledge.
Cheng, Y. (1994). Locus of control as an indicator of Hong Kong teachers job attitudes
and perceptions of organisational characteristics. Journal of Educational Research, 87
(3), 180-189.
Cohen, C., Marion, L. and Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education (5th
edition). London: Routledge Falmer.
146
Cranston, N. (2002). School-based management, leaders and leadership: Change and
challenges for principals. ISEA. 30 (1), 1-11.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research — Meaning and perspective in the
research process. Sydney: Allen Urwin.
Courts, F. (1996). Psychological Statistics: An Introduction. Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
David, J. (1989). Synthesis of research on school-based management. Educational
Leadership, 46 (8), 45-53.
David, J. (1995). The who, what and why of site-based management Educational
Leadership, 53 (4), 4-9.
Dee, J., Henkin, A. and Pell, S. (2002). Support for innovation in site-based managed
schools: Developing a climate of change. Educational Research Quarterly, 25 (4), 36-
48.
Delaney, J. (1997). Principal leadership: A primary factor in school-based management
and school improvement. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP
Bulletin, 81, 107-111.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Duke, D. and Gansneder, B. (1990). Teacher empowerment: The view from the
classroom. Educational Policy, 4 (2), 145-161.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell.
147
Gelzheiser, L., Meyers, B. and Meyers, J. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared
decision-making: A preliminary analysis of three teams. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 12 (4), 277-312.
Gonzales, E. and Short, P. (1996). The relationship of teachers' empowerment and
principal power bases. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 23 (3), 210-216.
Heck, R. and Brandon, P. (1995). Teacher empowerment and the implementation of
school-based reform. Empowerment in Organisation, 3 (4), 10-16.
Henkin, A., Cistone, P and Dee, J (2000). Conflict management strategies of principals
in site-based management schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 142-
153.
Hipp, K. and Huffman J. (2000). How leadership is shared and visions emerge in the
creation of learning communities. In P. Jenlink and T. Kowalski (eds.), Marching Into a
New Millennium: Challenges to Educational Leadership. London: The Scarecrow Press.
Hsieh, C. and Shen, J. (1998). Teachers', principals' and superintendents' conceptions
of leadership. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1), 107-122.
Issac, S. and Michael, W. (1995). Handbook of research and evaluation (3rd edition).
Educational and Industrial Services, San Diego.
Jantzi, D. and Leithwood, K. (1996). Towards and explanation of variation in teachers
perceptions of transformational school leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32 (4) 512-39.
Kirby, P. and Paradise, L. (1992). Extraordinary leaders in education: Understanding
transformational leadership. Journal of Educational Research, 85 (5), 303-311.
148
Klein, J. (2002). Prediction of success for school principal candidates by means of a
decision-making test. Journal of Educational Administration, 2 (3), 118-135.
Kowalski, T., Reitzug, U., McDaniel, P. and Otto, D. (1992). Perceptions of desired
skills for effective principals. Journal of School Leadership, 2, 299-309.
Lam, Y. (2002). Defining the effects of transformational leadership on organisational
learning: A cross-cultural comparison. School Leadership and Management, 22 (4) 439-
452.
Leithwood, K. and Aitken, R. (1995). Making schools smarter — A system of monitoring
school and district progress. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (1997). Explaining variation in teachers' perceptions of
principals' leadership: A replication. Journal of Educational Administration, 35 (4),
312-322).
Leonard, L. and Leonard, P. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration and leadership.
Journal of Educational Research, 92 (4), 237-243.
Matranga, M., Homer, M., Hill, G and Peltier, G. (1993). Site—based management: A
survey of Nevada principals. The Clearing House, 67 (1), 60-62.
Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology — Integrating
diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage
Publications.
149
Mulford, B., Kendall, L. and Kendall, D. (2004). Administrative practice and high
school students' perceptions of their school, teachers and performance. Journal of
Educational Administration, 42 (1), 78-84.
Mulford, B., Kendall, L. and Kendall, D. (2003). Local school management: does it
make a difference? In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (eds.), Learning to Read Critically in
Educational Leadership and Management. London: Sage Publications.
Mulford, B., Kendall, K., Kendall, D., Bishop, P. and Hogan, D. (2000). Decision-
making in primary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 28 (1),
57-76.
Mulford, B., Kendall, K., Kendall, D., Hogan, D. and Lamb, S. (2001). Decision-making
in Australian high schools. International Studies in Educational Administration, 29 (3),
49-73.
Mulford, B,. Silins, H., and Leithwood, K. (2004). Leadership for organisational
learning and improved student outcomes. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academics Press.
Novlan, J. (1998). New Zealand's past and tomorrow's Schools: Reasons, reforms and
results. School Leadership and Management, 18 (1), 7-19.
O'Donoghue, T. and Obrien, S. (1995). Teachers' perceptions of parental involvement
in school decision-making: A Western Australia case study. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 4 (4), 404-414.
Olivia, P. (1993). Supervision for today's schools. New York: Longman.
Osterman, K. and Crow, G. (1997). New urban principals role conceptions at the entry
level. Urban Education, 32 (3), 373-394.
150
Philips, D. (2000). Curriculum and assessment policy in New Zealand: Ten years of
reforms. Education Review, 52 (2), 143-154
Polit, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. (1997). Essentials of nursing research: Methods,
appraisals and utilisation. Human analysis incorporated Saratoga.
Punch, K.F. (1998). Introduction to social research — Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications.
Reitzug, Ulrich. (1997). Images of principal instructional leadership: From supervision
to collaborative inquiry, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 12 (4), 324-354.
Rhinehart, J., Short, P. and Johnson, P. (1997). Empowerment and conflict at site-based
and non-site based sites in the United States. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 25 (1), 76-87.
Rice, E. and Schneider, G. (1994). A decade of empowerment: An empirical analysis of
teacher involvement in decision-making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational
Administration, 32 (1), 43-59.
Robertson, J. (1991). Developing educational leadership. Masters Thesis, University of
Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Robertson, P. and Briggs, K. (1998). Improving schools through school-based
management: An examination of the process of change. School Effectiveness and school
Improvement, 9 (1), 28-57
Rubin, A. and Babbie, E.R. (1997). Research methods for social work. Brooks-Cole,
Pacific Grove.
151
Schumaker, S. and McMillan, J. (2001). Research in education (5th edition). Harper
Collins.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Why should we seek substitutes for leadership. Educational
Leadership, 49 (5), 41-45.
Sergiovanni, T. (1996). Leadership for the schoolhouse: How is it different? Why is it
important? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sergiovanni, T. and Starratt, J. (1993). Supervision, a redefinition. New York:
Longman.
Short, P. (1994). School management through self-managing teams: Leaders behaviour
in developing-managing works groups in schools. Education, 14 (4), 493-503.
Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership,
and school improvements outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5
(3), 272-298.
Southworth, G. (1999). Primary school leadership in England: Policy, practice and
theory. School Leadership and Management, 19 (1), 49-65.
Smylie, M., Lazarus, V. and Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of
school-based participative decision-making. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 18 (3), 181-198.
Snook, I. (1989). Education reform in New Zealand: What is going on? Paper presented
at the NZARE Conference, Trentham, November.
152
Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Task Force to Review Educational Administration (1998). Administering for Excellence,
Wellington.
Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3
(3), 1-16.
Townsend, T. (1994). Community involvement: The hidden factor in devolution. The
International Journal of Educational Management, 8 (4), 24-30.
Van Meter, E. (1994). Implementing school-based decision making in Kentucky.
NASSP Bulletin, September, 61-71.
Wallace, M. (2002). Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness:
Primary school senior management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 13 (2), 163-186.
Williams, R., Harold, B., Robertson, J. and Southworth, G. (1997). Sweeping
decentralisation of educational decision-making authority. Phi Delta Kappan, 78 (8),
626-631.
Wylie, C. (1994). Self-managing schools in New Zealand: The fifth year. New Zealand
Council for Educational Research, Wellington.
Wylie, C. (1997). At the centre of the web. New Zealand Council for Educational
Research, Wellington.
153
Wylie, C/ (1999). Ten years on: How schools view educational reform. New Zealand
Council for Educational Research. Wellington.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research design methods (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.
154
APPENDIX A
Letter to School Principals Seeking Permission to Undertake the Study
155
University of Tasmania
Mr Darrell Latham
The Principal Alexandra Primary School Ventry Street Alexandra
99 Ventry St,Alexandra darrell. coec @ xtra.co. nz 18 August 2003
Dear Principal My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford.
As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region in order to find out how teachers perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices. Teachers from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey.
With the development of School Based Management in New Zealand schools the focus has been on improving schools. The results of this research will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.
I am seeking your approval to approach teachers to invite them to participate in the survey. A semi-structured follow-up interview will be conducted with a number of teachers randomly selected from teachers completing the survey and agreeing to participate in an interview. All information provided will be CONFIDENTIAL and individual teachers will not be identified in any way.
A summary of the survey and semi-structured interview results will be provided to schools which participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.
If you approve, teachers will be asked to complete a survey of approximately 13 questions taking about 15 minutes to complete and, if selected, an interview of approximately 10 minutes.
This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). ([email protected] and [email protected])
Thank you
Darrell Latham Investigator
156
APPENDIX B
Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Teachers
Information Sheet for Semi-structured Follow-up Interviews: Teachers
Statement of Informed Consent: Teachers
Information Sheet for Survey Participants: Principals
157
University of Tasmania
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
INFORMATION SHEET FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS: TEACHERS Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford. As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey. As a teacher your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.
If you choose to participate you will be asked to complete a survey of approximately thirteen questions. It is anticipated that the survey should take approximately ten minutes of your time to complete. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided. A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.
It is planned to conduct follow-up interviews with approximately ten percent of the teachers who completed the survey in order to clarify and expand upon aspects of results obtained from the survey. You may be selected by random number to participate in an interview.
Principals in schools participating in the case study will be asked to number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher will compile a list of sequential numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher number is drawn the school will be contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the number participated in the survey and if so whether the teacher would agree to participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who have participated in the teacher survey will be asked to participate in an interview. This procedure is designed to preserve the anonymity of the teachers. Interviews will be arranged at a time and place agreeable to the teacher being interviewed.
Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school to invite participation.
This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). ([email protected] and [email protected] ) Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham ( 64 3 448 8449). If
you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 3 62262532)
Thank you Darrell Latham —Investigator
158
University of Tasmania Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
INFORMATION SHEET FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS
Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford. As part of this research, I have conducted a survey of teachers in schools in the Otago region. In order to clarify and expand upon the results of the survey I am conducting interviews with teachers who have been randomly selected from the teachers who participated in the survey. Teachers from U4 and above schools participated in the survey. As a teacher your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.
If you choose to participate you will be asked if you have completed the survey of teachers and if you are willing to participate in a semi-structured follow-up interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Interviews will be arranged at a time and place agreeable to the teacher being interviewed. Interviews will be audio-taped. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.
Principals in schools participating in the case study were asked to number their staff in alphabetical order. The researcher compiled a list of sequential numbers to use to draw a random sample of teachers for interview. As a teacher number was drawn the school was contacted to find out if the teacher identified by the number participated in the survey and if so whether the teacher would agree to participate in a follow-up interview. Only teachers who have participated in the teacher survey have been asked to participate in an interview. This procedure was designed to preserve the anonymity of the teachers who undertook the survey.
A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not be identifiable. Results of the survey and semi-structured interviews will be reported as group data only.
Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school, to invite participation.
This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). ([email protected] and [email protected]). Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham (64 3 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 362262532) Thank you
Darrell Latham - Investigator
159
University of Tasmania
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT - TEACHERS
Please read the following statement and sign at the bottom, if you are prepared to be involved in the study. You will be given copies of the information sheet and statement of informed consent to keep.
1. I have read and understood the 'Information Sheet' for this study.
2. I understand that the study involves the following procedures: completion of a survey and participation in a semi-structured follow-up interview lasting approximately 15 minutes, and the nature of my participation involves answering questions verbally that will be audio-taped.
3. It is understood that it is possible that some participants may experience embarrassment during the interview. Every effort will be made to minimise this and if any discomfort should arise during the interview, participants will be invited to cease the activity.
4. I understand that all research data will be treated as confidential and that I will not be identified In any way, and I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided that I cannot be identified as a subject.
5. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.
6. My participation is entirely voluntary and I may terminate my involvement at any time without prejudice.
7. I would like to receive a copy of the summary of the results of the survey and semi-structured interviews obtained from this study. Yes/No "If yes," please provide address for forwarding summary of results.
Name of subject
Signature of subject Date
A statement by the investigator I have explained this project and the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of participation.
Name of investigator
Signature of investigator Date Please send copy of survey results and semi-structured interviews to: Address of
160
University of Tasmania
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Professor Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
INFORMATION SHEET FOR SURVEY PARTICIPANTS: PRINCIPALS
Dear Principal My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Professor Bill Mulford.
As part of this research, I am conducting a survey of teachers and principals in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools are invited to participate in the survey. As a principal your opinion of school leadership is very important. Results of the survey will be useful for the improvement of school organisation.
If you choose to participate you will be asked to complete a survey of approximately thirteen questions. It is anticipated that the survey should take approximately ten minutes of your time to complete. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.
A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools, which participate in the survey, but results derived from any particular school will not identifiable. Results of the survey will be reported as group data only.
This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). ([email protected] and Amanda.McAully @utas.edu .au)
Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham ( 03 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Professor Bill Mulford (61 3 62 262532)
Thank you
Darrell Latham Investigator
161
APPENDIX C
Information Sheet for Semi-structured Interviews: Senior Teachers
Statement of Informed Consent: Senior Teachers
162
University of Tasmania
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
INFORMATION SHEET FOR SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS (SENIOR TEACHER)
Dear Teacher My name is Darrell Latham and I am undertaking research investigating perceptions of school leadership as part of the requirements for a Doctorate in Education through the University of Tasmania, under the supervision of Prof. Bill Mulford.
As part of this research, I have conducted a survey of teachers and principals in schools in the Otago region. Teachers and principals from U4 and above schools were invited to participate in the survey. Results of the survey would be useful for the improvement of school organisation.
I am conducting interviews with senior teachers from four randomly selected schools in the Otago region in order to expand upon the data gathered from the teacher survey. As a senior teacher in the school your opinion of the way that teachers view school leadership is very important.
If you choose to participate you will be asked to participate in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes. Interviews will be audio-taped. All information that you provide will be CONFIDENTIAL and you will not be identified in any way. Data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. Participation is voluntary. If you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.
A summary of the survey results will be provided to schools that participate in the study, but results derived from any particular school will not be identifiable. Results of the survey and semi-structured interviews will be reported as group data only.
Under the New Zealand system of devolution of authority, the principal is responsible for approving research undertaken in the school. The principals of each school in the Otago region included in the study have given permission for me to approach teachers in their school to invite participation.
This study has been approved by the Southern Tasmanian Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee. If you have any concerns about the ethics of this research you should contact the Chair of the Ethics Committee, A/Prof Gino Dal Pont (Ph 61-3 622622078) or the Executive Officer, Mrs Amanda McAully (61 3 6226 2763). ([email protected] and [email protected] )
Any further information you require may be obtained from Darrell Latham (64 3 448 8449). If you have any other concerns you may contact the chief investigator, Prof. Bill Mulford (61 3 62262523) Thank you
Darrell Latham Investigator
163
University of Tasmania Title of project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT - SENIOR TEACHERS
Please read the following statement and sign at the bottom, if you are prepared to be involved in the study. You will be given copies of the information sheet and statement of informed consent to keep.
1. I have read and understood the 'Information Sheet' for this study.
2. I understand that the study involves the following procedures: Participation in a semi-structured interview lasting approximately fifteen minutes and the nature of my participation involves answering questions verbally that will be audio-taped.
3. It is understood that it is possible that some participants may experience embarrassment during the interview. Every effort will be made to minimise this and if any discomfort should arise during the interview, participants will be invited to cease the activity.
4. I understand that all research data will be treated as confidential and that I will not be identified in any way, and I agree that research data gathered for the study may be published provided that I cannot be identified as a subject. I understand that data collected will be stored securely for at least five years and then destroyed. I understand that participation is voluntary. I understand that if you choose to withdraw from the study, you may choose to also withdraw the data that you have provided.
5. Any questions that I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction.
6. My participation is entirely voluntary and I may terminate my involvement at any time without prejudice.
7. I would like to receive a copy of the summary of the results of the survey and semi-structured interviews obtained from this study. Yes/No "If yes," please provide address for forwarding summary of results.
Name of subject
Signature of subject Date
A statement by the investigator I have explained this project and the implications of participation in it to this volunteer and I believe that the consent is informed and that he/she understands the implications of participation. Name of investigator
Signature of investigator Date Please send copy of survey results and semi-structured interviews to:-Address of
164
APPENDIX D
Teacher Survey of School leadership
165
TEACHER SURVEY OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
As part of a doctorate in education research study for the University of Tasmania, I am conducting a survey of teachers in the Otago region in New Zealand regarding school leadership. Teachers in schools (Primary, Contributing and Intermediate schools of one hundred and fifty students and above) are being surveyed in order to find out how teachers perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices in their school.
I would like you to take some time to complete the following survey, as your opinion as a practising teacher is very important. Results of this survey will be very helpful for improving school organisation and development.
Responses will be kept strictly confidential. Your name is not required and your identity will not be known. Results will be reported as group data only and your school will not be identified in any way.
A summary of the survey results will be forwarded to the principal of the school after the research study has been completed.
The survey should take ten minutes to complete. Please return the survey in the stamp-addressed envelope provided. General follow-up reminder phone calls may be made to your school to increase response rate if needed, but it would not be known who has completed the survey.
Your involvement in this survey is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Darrell Latham
Please answer the first nine questions, which seek general information about teachers completing the survey.
Q. 1 Gender: Male Female (please circle)
Q. 2 What is your highest qualification'?
Q. 3 Type of school: Full Primary School --- Contributing School --- Intermediate School
(please circle) Q. 4 Position of responsibility (please circle)
Deputy Principal --- Assistant Principal --- Senior Teacher/Management Unit Holder Q. 5 Years in your current school before this year: years
Q. 6 How many years have you taught before this year? years
Q. 7 Number of principals you have worked for including your current principal 1 2 3 4 5 more than 5 (please circle)
166
Q. 8 Do you aspire to become a principal sometime in the future? Yes / No (please circle)
Q. 9 If No - please TICK ONE of the following options as a reason for your opinion
I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan I do not believe that I have the capacity to become a principal
No matter how capable I am, I do not believe that I would be appointed to a position as principal Other, please specify
Q.10 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each statement on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the importance to you as a teacher of the leadership characteristic. Please circle the appropriate number.
Leadership Characteristic High Low Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1
2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1
Q.11 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each item on a scale of five being high and one being low according to the emphasis given by leadership in your school to the leadership characteristic. Please circle appropriate number
Leadership Characteristic High Low 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing reco_gnition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1
167
Q.12 The following statements refer to aspects of school leadership in your school. Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement by placing a tick in the appropriate box:
Strongly Disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Not Sure (NS) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA)
Statement: The school leadership in my school (Principal/Deputy Principal/Assistant Principal)
SD D NS A SA
1 Has the capacity to overcome most obstacles 2 Leads by doing rather than by telling 3 Provides for our participation in the process of developing school goals 4 Provides for professional development 5 Encourages us to evaluate our practices 6 Has the trust of teachers in the school 7 1-Ilds hi h expectations for students 8 Facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other 9 Commands respect from everybody in the school 10 Symbolises success/accomplishment within our profession 11 Encourages teachers to work towards the same goals 12 Provides recognition of teachers' work 13 Excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together 14 Provides good models for us to follow 15 Works towards whole staff consensus in establishing priorities for school goals 16 Takes my opinion into consideration when initiating actions that affect my work 17 Is a source of new ideas for my professional learning 18 Has high expectations for us as professionals 19 Shows respect for staff by treating us as professionals 20 Encourages us to develop/review individual professional growth goals
consistent with school goals/priorities 21 Models continual learning in his or her own practice 22 Gives us a sense of overall purpose 23 Facilitates effective communication among staff 24 Is aware of my unique needs/expertise 25 Trusts teachers in the school 26 Delegates leadership for activities critical for achieving goals
168
Q.13 The Following statements refer to aspects of school decision-making. Please indicate your level of agreement to each statement, for your school, by placing a tick in the
appropriate box:
Strongly Disagree (SD) Disagree (D) Not Sure (NS) Agree (A) Strongly Agree (SA)
Statement SD D NS A SA 1 In general teachers are kept well informed about major issues facing the
school 2 In general teachers have adequate opportunity to participate in the
development of the school's goals & plans 3 All members of the school community have adequate opportunities to
participate in decision-making 4 The overall management style could de described as "Top Down" decision-
making 5 Decision-making is characterised by collaborative, cooperative and
consultative processes 6 The school management restricts the ability of individual teachers to
determine teaching practices and methods 7 At this school collegial decision-making takes precedence over executive
management .
8 The decision-making processes are slow and cumbersome 9 The values of teaching staff and the goals of management are often in
conflict
Thank you. Darrell Latham
169
APPENDIX E
Principal Survey of School Leadership
170
PRINCIPAL SURVEY OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP
As part of a doctorate in education research study for the University of Tasmania, I am conducting a survey of principals in the Otago region in New Zealand regarding school leadership. Principals of schools (Primary, Contributing and Intermediate schools of one hundred and fifty students and above) are being surveyed in order to find out how principals perceive school leadership characteristics and school management practices in their school.
I would like you to take some time to complete the following survey as your opinion as a principal is very important. Results of this survey will be very helpful for improving school organisation and development.
Responses will be kept strictly confidential. Your name is not required and your identity will not be known. Results will be reported as group data only and your school will not be identified in any way.
A summary of the survey results will be forwarded to the school after the research study has been completed.
The survey should take ten minutes to complete. Please return the survey in the stamp-addressed envelope provided. General follow-up reminder phone calls may be made to your school to increase response rate if needed, but it would not be known who has completed the survey. Your involvement in this survey is greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance. Darrell Latham
Please answer the first nine questions, which seek general information about principals completing the survey.
Q. 1 Gender: Male Female (please circle)
Q. 2 Age: Years
Q. 3 What is your highest qualification?
Q. 4 Type of school: Full Primary School Contributing School Intermediate School (please circle)
Q. 5 Years as a principal before this year years
Q. 6 Years in your current school before this year years
Q. 7 Years of teaching experience before this year years
Q. 8 How satisfied are you with being a principal? please circle
very satisfied 5
very dissatisfied 4 3 2
Q. 9 Would you recommend others to become a principal? Yes / No (please circle)
171
Q. 10 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each statement on a scale of five being high and one being low, according to the importance to you as a principal of the leadership characteristic. Please the circle appropriate number.
Leadership Characteristic High Low. 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1 9 Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 1 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1
Q. 11 The following items represent characteristics of school leadership. Please rank each item on a scale of five being high and one being low according to the emphasis given by you to the leadership characteristic in your leadership of the school. Please circle appropriate number.
Leadership Characteristic High Low. 1 Fostering the development of a shared vision for the school 5 4 3 2 1 2 Managing change effectively 5 4 3 2 1 3 Projecting a positive image to the school community 5 4 3 2 1 4 Working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvement goals 5 4 3 2 1 5 Supporting teachers by being approachable 5 4 3 2 1 6 Providing professional development opportunities for teachers 5 4 3 2 1 7 Encouraging a climate of open communication 5 4 3 2 1 8 Ensuring effective administrative management 5 4 3 2 1
Providing recognition for achievement 5 4 3 2 10 Participating actively in curriculum development 5 4 3 2 1 11 Distributing leadership opportunities among the staff 5 4 3 2 1
172
Q. 12 The following randomly listed areas concern clusters of leadership skills/characteristics. Do you consider that there is a sequence in the way that principals acquire these skills? Yes / No (please circle)
If Yes - Please identify a sequence in the way that principals should acquire leadership skills/characteristics, by numbering 1 - 6 for the list below.
Vision and goals: The extent to which the principal works towards whole staff consensus in establishing school priorities and communicates these priorities and goals to students and staff, giving a sense of overall purpose. Culture: The extent to which the principal promotes an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff, sets a respectful tone for interaction with students, and demonstrates a willingness to change his or her practices in the light of new understandings. Structure: The extent to which the principal establishes a school structure that promotes participative decision making, supports delegation and distributive leadership, and encourages teacher autonomy for making decisions. Intellectual Stimulation: The extent to which the principal encourages staff to reflect on what they are trying to achieve with students and how they are doing it, facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other, and models continual learning in his or her own practice. Individual Support: The extent to which the principal provides moral support, shows appreciation for the work of individual staff, and takes their opinion into account when making decisions. Performance Expectations: The extent to which the principal has high expectations for teachers and for students and expects staff to be effective and innovative.
Q. 13 The following randomly listed areas concern clusters of leadership skills/characteristics. Do you consider that there is a sequence in the way that principals use these skills? Yes / No (please circle)
If Yes - Please identify a sequence in the way that principals should use leadership skills/characteristics, by numbering 1 - 6 for the list below.
Vision and goals: The extent to which the principal works towards whole staff consensus in establishing school priorities and communicates theses priorities and goals to students and staff, giving a sense of overall purpose. Culture: The extent to which the principal promotes an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff, sets a respectful tone for interaction with students, and demonstrates a willingness to change his or her practices in the light of new understandings. Structure: The extent to which the principal establishes a school structure that promotes participative decision making, supports delegation and distributive leadership, and encourages teacher autonomy for making decisions. Intellectual Stimulation: The extent to which the principal encourages staff to reflect on what they are trying to achieve with students and how they are doing it, facilitates opportunities for staff to learn from each other, and models continual learning in his or her own practice. Individual Support: The extent to which the principal provides moral support, shows appreciation for the work of individual staff, and takes their opinion into account when making decisions. Performance Expectations: The extent to which the principal has high expectations for teachers and for students and expects staff to be effective and innovative.
Thank You Darrell Latham
173
APPENDIX F
Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Schedule: Teachers
174
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
SEMI- STRUCTURED FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - TEACHERS
Preparation As a participant in the survey of teachers, you have been selected to undertake a brief interview. The purpose of the interview is to seek your opinion concerning the results of the survey in order to provide a clearer understanding and to clarify particular issues. Please read the following questions before we start the interview so that you have some time to reflect on your response.
Questions Items representing characteristics of school leadership were investigated to determine how teachers ranked these items in terms of IMPORTANCE to them as a teacher, and also the EMPHASIS given to these items by their school leadership. Likert-scale items in the survey related to aspects of school leadership in their school.
Communication Skills Ql: In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses
regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was "supporting teachers by being approachable" and "encouraging a climate of open communication" (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning "facilitates effective communication among staff', responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree). Why do you think teachers responded this way?
Recognition of Teaching Q2: In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for
"providing recognition for achievement" and "managing change effectively" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding " emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions "is aware of my unique needs / expertise" and "provides recognition of teachers work" had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree! Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?
175
Instructional leadership Q3: In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most
teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for "participating actively in curriculum development" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning "is a source of new ideas for my professional learning" and "excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together", responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?
School Goals and Vision Q4: A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over
one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis givenin the school" for the following two items: "fostering the development of a shared vision for the school" "working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals". How would you interpret this result?
Administrative Management Q5: A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one third
of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item. "ensuring effective administrative management" How would you interpret this result?
Q6: Over 83% of teachers responded "no" to the question "do you aspire to become a school Principal ?". Of the people who answered "no" to this question nearly two thirds gave as a reason "I believe that I could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan." How would you explain this result?
Before we conclude, is there anything further that you would like to add to any of the questions or are there any additional comments that you wish to make?
176
APPENDIX G
Semi-Structured Interview Schedule: Senior Teachers
,
177
Title of Project: A Case Study of Teachers' and Principals' Perceptions of School Leadership Chief Investigator: Prof. Bill Mulford Investigator: Mr Darrell Latham
SEMI- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - SENIOR TEACHERS
Preparation You have been selected to undertake a brief interview. The purpose of the interview is to investigate the characteristics that you believe teachers' value in school leadership. If you have not received the interview questions, please read the following questions before we start the interview so that you have some time to reflect on your response.
Questions
Ql: From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?
Q2: How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?
Q3: From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school decision-making?
Q4: School based- management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?
Q5: What do you consider to be the negatives of school based-management?
Q6: Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response).
Before we conclude, is there anything further that you would like to add to any of the questions or are there any additional comments that you wish to make?
178
APPENDIX H
Survey Data
179
Table 27: vision ana uoats: Impurtainx Ii y dans
Item
xlantplacto
TIP 5 4 3 2 1 Total Mean
T (I) 117 32 8 0 0 157 4.161 74.5 20.4 5.1 0 0 100%
Working jointly with staff to T (E) 65 59 24 5 2 155 4.69
accomplish school improvement 41.9 38.1 15.5 3.2 1.3 100%
P (I) 21 4 0 0 0 25 4.84 goals
84.0 16.0 0 0 0 100%
P (E) 14 10 1 0 0 25 4.52 56.0 40.0 4.0 0 0 100%
T (I) 91 58 7 1 0 157 4.52 58.0 36.9 4.5 .6 0 100%
Fostering the development of a T (E) 59 59 32 4 1 155 4.103
shared vision for the school 38.1 38.1 20.6 2.6 .6 100% P(l) 18 7 0 0 0 25 4.72
72.0 28.0 0 0 0 100% P(E) 15 9 1 0 0 25 4.56
60.0 36.0 4.0 0 0 100% T (I) 67 71 14 2 2 156 4.28
• ' 42.9 45.5 9.0 1.3 1.3 100%
Distributing leadership opportunities T (E) 63 61 32 4 1 155 4.116
amongst staff 40.6 38.7 14.2 4.5 1.9 100% P (I) 14 11 0 0 0 25 4.56
56.0 44.0 0 0 0 100% P (E) 9 14 2 0 0 25 4.28
36.0 56.0 8.0 0 0 100%
1 awe Bo: 3Cf1001 kAIILUI C 41IU am anaps.....„
Item TIP
,n, .....“.....,..--
5
,_,
4 3 2 1 Total Mean
T (I) 100 46 11 0 0 157 4.57 63.7 29.3 7.0 0 0 100%
Projecting a positive image to the T (E) 107 34 12 2 0 155 4.587
school community 69.1 21.9 7.7 1.3 0 100% P (I) 19 5 1 0 0 25 4.64
76.0 20.0 4.0 0 0 100% P (E) 15 6 3 1 0 25 4.40
60.0 24.0 12.0 4.0 0 100% T (I) 128 27 2 0 0 157 4.80
81.5 17.2 1.3 0 0 100%
Supporting teachers by being T (E) 82 41 19 10 3 155 4.219
approachable 52.8 26.5 12.3 6.5 1.9 100% P (I) 20 4 0 0 0 24 4.833
83.4 16.6 0 0 0 100% P (E) 19 4 2 0 0 25 4.68
76.0 16.0 8.0 0 0 100% T(l) 130 24 2 0 0 156 4.82
83.3 15.4 1.3 0 0 100%
Encouraging a climate of open T (E) 62 50 30 9 4 155 4.013
communication 40.0 32.3 19.4 5.8 2.5 100%
P (I) 18 7 0 0 0 25 4.72 72.0 28.0 0 0 0 100%
P (E) 17 6 2 0 0 25 4.60 68.0 24.0 8.0 0 0 100%
180
Intellectual Stimulation: Importance (I) and Emphasis (E) - - -
Item TIP 5 4 3 2 1 Total Mean
T (I) 95 51 11 0 0 157 4.54 60.5 32.5 7 0 0 100%
Providing professional development T (E) 85 45 22 3 0 155 4.364
opportunities for teachers 54.9 29.0 14.2 1.9 0 100% P (I) 15 8 1 0 0 24 4.583
62.5 33.3 4.2 0 0 100% P (E) 15 9 1 0 0 25 4.56
60.0 36.0 4.0 0 0 100%
T (I) 79 64 10 2 0 155 4.42 51.0 41.2 6.5 1.3 0 100%
Participating actively in curriculum T (E) 65 53 25 8 4 155 4.077
development 41.9 34.2 16.1 5.2 2.6 100% P (I) 18 5 2 0 0 25 4.64
72.0 20.0 8.0 0 0 100% P (E) 11 8 5 1 0 25 4.16
44.0 32.0 20.0 4.0 0 100%
tame su: renormance r.,Xpeuiduultn. ampua 1.........
Item TIP
kn ., .........................,
5
...,
4 3 2 1 Total Mean T (I) 94 54 7 2 0 157 4.53
59.8 34.4 4.5 1.3 0 100%
Managing change effectively T (E) 48 67 31 8 1 155 3.987 31.0 43.2 20.0 5.2 .6 100%
P (I) 19 6 0 0 0 25 4.76 76.0 24.0 0 0 0 100%
P (E) 11 14 0 0 0 25 4.24 44.0 56.0 0 0 0 100%
T (I) 92 51 14 0 0 157 4.50 58.6 32.5 8.9 0 0 100%
Ensuring effective administrative T (E) 77 48 25 4 1 155 4.265
management 49.7 31.0 16.1 2.6 .6 100% P (I) 12 12 0 1 0 25 4.40
48.0 48.0 0 4.0 0 100% P (E) 10 10 5 0 0 25 4.20
40.0 40.0 20.0 0 0 100%
T (I) 81 62 12 1 1 157 4.41 51.6 39.6 7.6 .6 .6 100%
Providing recognition for T (E) 46 55 40 10 4 155 3.832
achievement 29.7 35.4 25.8 6.5 2.6 100% P (I) 12 12 1 0 0 25 4.44
48.0 48.0 4.0 0 0 100% P (E) 11 10 1 2 0 24 4.25
45.8 41.7 4.2 8.3 0 100%
til nI 1mnhdc( Fl
181
APPENDIX I
Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Data: Teachers
182
SEMI - STRUCTURED FOLLOW -UP INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - TEACHERS
Questions
Communication Skills Ql: In the survey, two items in the rating scale related to leadership characteristics, and responses
regarding "importance to me as a teacher" were generally high to items that school leadership was "supporting teachers by being approachable" and "encouraging a climate of open communication" (with 98% for ranks of five and four). However, responses to these items were lower regarding "emphasis in the school" (with 72% and 79% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for one item concerning 'facilitates effective communication among staff', responses were lower (68%, Agree / Strongly Agree). Why do you think teachers responded this way?
Teacher (1) I find our principal very approachable, I find it good, but I suppose it depends on how you react to people, it's a reaction thing. It comes from the leadership down usually and! suppose, I think that sometimes its gender too because sometimes women are easier to talk to than men. It's probably just a perceived thing. Teacher (2) I think being approachable and communicating effectively can be two quite different things, I think that the results here quite clearly show that people. Miscommunication and poor communication can often lead to confusion. Staff will often only approach management when it's of high importance to them otherwise they just might go with the flow. Teacher (3) Staff may not have the same expectations as management does and the things that they want to put in are different from the teachers.., that might be the reason for the discrepancy maybe. Teacher (4) Perhaps some teachers are not included in the loop sort of thing perhaps social groupings or age and perhaps poor people and personal skills, perhaps just a failure to use the expertise of all staff and to take on their views. It might be that they are taking on just new ideas and not listening to the experienced teachers ideas. Failure perhaps to follow up with effective communication, perhaps people feels that their ideas are not being listened to. Perhaps some leaders are more the boss leaders and not sharing leaders. Teacher (5) The teachers obviously don't think that the people in leadership are approachable if they have responded in that way and they obviously don't feel that they have that climate of open communication in their school for whatever reason. I cant answer for the way other people answer. Teacher (6) No comment Teacher (7) I think that a lot of teachers responded in this way because they need the support of the team that they have all different concerns in that they need to be able to go and sit with management and not feel intimidated by the fact that the response they might get that the management needs to be professional as well as having some care for their staff and the emphasis. Sometimes I think that the response there is affected by past experiences have not had an open door policy where the management has not had an open door policy and been out amongst the teachers. Teachers (8)
183
Well I presume that teachers want to be supported by someone being approachable. It's obviously not happening to the extent that they want it to happen. That's why they responded that way. Teacher (9) I believe that we are supported and can be heard and that it is dealt with then and there but if it goes beyond that and its not a pressing issue that's where I feel that the emphasis is lost and I would put that down purely to the size of the school. Teacher (10) For the staff what was important to them was supporting the teachers by being approachable and encouraging a climate of open communication, 98% and the schools emphasis was a little lower because, Imp not really sure. I'm quite surprised at that but think that maybe we all communicate in different ways and its pretty hard to get the message across to everybody in the same way. Maybe the message is there and you are not prepared to listen and maybe principals and DPs have got so much paper work to do that they are assuming that they have got the message across and perhaps its not clear enough. Teacher (11) Its very important within a school especially being able to approach a principal is a key thing in being to be able to openly communicate, so the response herewith the emphasis being lower, so obviously teachers were wanting this but its not. I would believe that being approachable is high for teachers and communication but in saying that I think that there is always room for improvement, there is always a chance that there could be more communication and more approachable. There are situations that arise in the school that make some people harder to approach and you might relate to other people better, so I think that there is always that little bit of room for improvement. Teacher (12) My perception of that would be that as a teachers you need to know that you have the support of your principal If you are having issues, however I think that sometimes as professional when you have got a contentious issue that you want to bring up with your principal as professional we are not confident enough to go and sort it out even though the lines of communication may be open. Teacher (13) I think the ideal is the way that teachers see open communication and support system as being cooperative...that is the ideal but there are things pulling peoples energies that those things get lost along the way. Teacher (14) Maybe time, not enough time to have the communication in school hours. I don't know, maybe if syndicates are not so close if I don't feel that way at all, because I do have time to do it. I'm not too sure really. Teacher (15) Yes it's important to feel supported and that you can approach the leadership to sort a problem out. Often you can be left on your own to struggle through the situation which is not a good thing. Young teachers need to be supported and often its not that they don't want to help you but that they are so busy with the other things in the school.
Recognition of Teaching Q2: In the survey, two items in the rating-scale question related to recognition of teaching
Most teachers responses were high for "importance to me as teacher" for "providing recognition for achievement" and "managing change effectively" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four) but responses regarding "emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (65.2% and 74.2% for ranks of five and four). The Likert-scale questions "is aware of my unique needs / expertise" and "provides recognition of teachers work" had a lower score (67% and 72% Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you explain this result?
Teacher (1) That's really important. We like to be told that we are wanted and needed and good. Yes it is often forgotten in the rush to do things. Its there and occasionally they put it in but they forget that people need that little pat on the back. That's what we want and its not because they don't want to do it, they forget. Teacher (2)
184
I agree that its incredibly important to provide recognition for achievement and its important to manage change effectively however in any working situation where you've got different viewpoints that management of change is viewed differently. We want other people to see what we have done and to express their approval accordingly. Teacher (3) I see that teachers see that recognition and achievement is a really needy thing but im wondering again if management has a different sense of that and hasn't got again the emphasis on that point and maybe they prefer to focus on Unique needs and expertise, we are not very good in society in recognising when somebody is doing well and timetabling in schools doent allow you to shift to meet people needs. Teacher (4) I think that all teachers need to have equal feedback from teachers and all teachers need personal feedback and that's not just paper feedback or computer feedback its that personal interaction between the leader and the teacher so that they feel values and they feel that their work is recognised, Sometimes the recognition of achievement is not to the person who is responsible. You need to recognise all teachers not just the leaders. Teacher (5) Well obviously some teachers don't feel supported do they... in their schools they obviously don't feel supported enough and also their achievements are not recognised enough. I can't say any more. Teachers (6) No comment Teacher (7) Teachers all feel that they work extremely hard, they work long hours and they take on all sorts of new initiatives and they work through them without a lot of help and guidance at times and they deal with the extra stuff and go into the classroom and try and teach good strong lessons and at the day at the end of the week it goes without being noticed without a lot of recognition. There is also professional development and that is taken on board as part of being a teacher and you are going the extra mile for yourself for the school and it needs to be recognised. If its not recognised in the school then its not going to be recognised outside of the school either. Teacher (8) The same answers as question one. Teacher (9) The recognition for achievement is given according to strengths in this school but when it comes down to individuals I believe that you get lost in the crowd because we have got so big, and its horrible to say but the person with the best selling ability gets heard whereas the quiet teacher can often be better is lost. Teacher (10) Once again I'm not sure why its different and once again maybe it's a work load thing, perhaps senior staff because of the workload just assume people have been recognised, when really it's the little things hat they appreciate being recognised for. Sometimes if you are doing a good job it's never said, you are only told if you are doing something wrong. Teacher (11) Change within the school is a big factor for teachers and being able to obviously provide clean changeovers and managing change effectively is important because if you are unable to do this. I guess its important for teachers because a lot of planning goes into the day, so if there is change within the school structure.. within school syndicates you want it to be as smooth as possible and perhaps in this case I believe you would want a principal who if he says that he is going to do something that he is going to follow it through. Providing recognition for achievement I guess management want to back up what is happening but I guess that there is always room for improvement. Teacher (12) I think the difference would be because the school is always looking to improve that perhaps we don't spend so much time recognising those achievements because we are always searching for those things that we are not doing so well in our programmes so that we can make improvements.. as long as there is a balance between one and the other so that you are able to say "yes" you are having success and theses are the reasons why, but this could still occur and be improved. Teacher (13) Yes again, I think that there is just such a pull on teachers time and energy at the moment that while its ideal for change to be taken into consideration and not get too bogged down with it as we tend to, its probably not managed as well as could be. Teacher (14)
185
Maybe the leadership or the leaders are not aware of what you are achieving. I suppose that it goes down to staff vibes as well. Once again time to do that, leaders are very busy in the school, I think a good leader would recognise your achievements, but maybe they are not aware whats going on. Teacher (15) Teachers want to be supported and they want to have some recognition for the work that they do but schools are busy places and often it is overlooked and imp not sure that its done for any other reason than there is just so much for leaders to do in the school and there are many demands on time. Often it is just overlooked.
Instructional leadership Q3: In the survey, one item in the rating-scale question related to instructional leadership. Most
teachers responses were high for "importance to me as a teacher" for "participating actively in curriculum development" (with 91% and over, for ranks of five and four), but responses regarding"emphasis in the school" had a lower percentage score (76.1% for ranks of five and four). Similarly, responses to Likert-scale items were generally high but, for two items concerning "is a source of new ideas for my professional learning" and excites us with visions of what we may be able to accomplish if we work together", responses were lower (65.9% and 57.7%, Agree / Strongly Agree). How would you interpret this result?
Teacher (1) I can see the importance of participating actively in curriculum development because that's the only way we learn. We learn by doing. The emphasis is lower because it probably depends on who is taking the curriculum development because some people are good at it and some people are not. Some people just talk at you and have difficulty doing the hands on bit. I suppose it depends on whether you like the curriculum that you are doing and whether it excites your vision. Teacher (2) This is a really interesting one and a result of over programming professional development. We have had too much PD in the last little while and the emphasis has come through that management thinks that it is important... there been a lot of talk amongst staff about that, having said that we are always eager to learn as teachers but often when opportunities arise we want to take them and we end up overloading ourselves as well. Teacher (3) To me as a teacher the leadership of doing curriculum development is really important and I'm wondering if when you are talking about the leadership in the school. As a teacher you are a separate entity and you can see what you think is important and in a school if you are in a leadership role possibly you've got other issues on your time and maybe you don't see it being back in the classroom doing curriculum development and possibly that is why the emphasis for leadership in the school is lower. Teacher (4) I feel that everyone wants to participate actively in Curriculum development, perhaps it's the new ideas and the vision is not presented in a way that enthuses the people to develop further and perhaps sometimes too many new things are presented so that you have overload....its about striking a happy medium so that you have time to reflect, perhaps better to do less and do it well. Teacher (5) They obviously feel that they are not getting enough PD opportunities in their school or that the PD that they are getting is not motivating enough and is not meeting their needs. They obviously see curriculum development as important but that its not happening and that they are not moving on with their development in the way that they would like to be. Teachers (6) Curriculum development is really important and teachers always need to be doing that but there is so much of it and we need to be able to mange it better. We have got too much happening and it would be better if we had less and were able to make a better job of it Teacher (7) This could because management teams are actively involved in the curriculum development and you all go together as a team and then its left up to the teacher to implement the new development and trial it to see if its
186
going to work and the management team are there for you to go and seek advice form but they are not actually there in the teaching of the new development. Teacher (8) The same answers, it not happening. Lack of communication. Teacher (9) lye been in education long enough to see the many cycles of change where you are keep updated and I believe that we are about to come to the next wave..., we have kept up with every curriculum. Its really important to be involved in that but it comes down to you as the individual teacher and my question is, is it really the area that I need to develop in even if! have to do it because it's a school focus but is it really benefiting me or the children I teach? Teacher (10) I think that maybe the teachers felt the emphasis in the school was maybe lower because don't really know, can I say that, don't really know. Teacher (11) In this question in past experience there has been a notice handed around saying that a meeting is happening. I think that if it was promoted more then I think that information is there and its handed out but its sort of just passed by you and Umm you don't get the opportunity to follow it up... the principal needs to sit down more and go through it. Teacher (12) I believe that our school takes on a really positive whole school approach to curriculum development which the principal and the senior staff and the wider school staff are involved in whole school development. Teacher (13) Yes the leadership is considered as important by teachers that curriculum development is emphasised but in actual act the leaders in the school are probably so involved in the day to day management and day to day running that the curriculum stuff gets rated to a lower status. Teacher (14) I think that the leadership need to be actively involved in the curriculum development really I don't know why they are not. Again its because they have too much responsibility. They need more time to do it. Teacher (15) School development and the curriculum is really important and we spend a lot of time here, often we don't have the time or there to too greater an expectation and we get overloaded with things happening. I think if we could do less we could do a better job and we would all benefit from it.
School Goals and Vision Q4: A comparison of the rank order of items for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that over
one third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following two items: "fostering the development of a shared vision for the school" "working jointly with staff to accomplish school improvements goals". How would you interpret this result?
Teacher (1) These have come out lower in emphasis because you have got the old school and the new school. There are not many of the old school left a few of us. We take those things for granted and we think that they are there already, we know that they are of importance but we forget that other people need to be involved. Teachers (2) We have a very clear visionary statement and I think that staff knows it's very very clear however, not everybody agrees and that has made it a challenge to make it happen. Its not realistic to think that everybody has the same vision but we have to find some way of making it work and allowing individuality still being a part of how the school works. Its an ongoing challenge I think. Teacher (3) Teachers and management are out of touch slightly and we are not communicating clearly enough what we think is important and the teachers are not giving that message across or are not able to get that message
187
across as to what they would like to see happen and management has not picked up that we have got discrepancies between the two factions. Teacher (4) Some of the things have been covered already.. .its that shared vision thing and being aware of it and given the right climate and resources to be able to accomplish it. Teacher (5) Well the teachers felt that they were not involved in the process. Teachers felt that they were not part of establishing the joint vision for the school, that would be the obvious reason. Teachers (6) Oh, that's that concept that people have in their own mind that what they think is important but, sometimes the reality of how schools are run can be quite different, unfortunately. Teachers (7) Sorry I'm unsure. Teacher (8) Same Teacher (9) Because I'm a teachers and I have knowledge to share and fostering the development of a shared vision we communicate it we strive for it but I often think that it gets lost so therefore the vision for the school you only really talk about it at a meeting. When we are working jointly with staff well we try, but some days I don't see any body even though we have over 50 staff we are just too big. Teacher (10) Maybe we just assume that we have all got the same goals and vision and we don't spend time actually talking about what are goals and vision are, so we have all got slightly different ideas which would mean that the overall school thing would be a little different, that's it. Teacher (11) In a school you are working as one big team and what you want is where there are visions and goals set up for the year that you work as a team to achieve these. I guess as a teachers these are very important but in saying that I wonder if sometimes that, not being critical that with some of them being out of the teaching side of things that some of the goals that teachers see as being important are not necessarily as important for them. Teacher (12) I think that school goals and visions are good as a whole school / wider school community for everyone to be on the same track with PD I believe that it important that staff should have the opportunity to also go down the track of what believe is important to develop in to those particular areas as well and to develop those as a focus point of interest, not just from the whole perspective of the school. Teacher (13) Yes it would be nice to develop that shared vision and have unique characteristics and have lots of change all of the time which is going to meet the needs of the kids, but the day to day running of the school takes 100% of the energy. Teacher (14) I think that teachers should have more say in the shared vision of the school because we know the children and we know what they want and urn maybe things like the board have got more time to look where the schools going. I dont think that we are really asked a lot to know where we are going. Teacher (15) We talk at lot about what our vision is and we have input in to it at meetings and that but sometimes its difficult to achieve all those things as it seen as being important but the resourcing is not there to achieve all the things that really need to be done.
Administrative Management Q5: A comparison of the rank order for "emphasis" and "importance" showed that nearly one
third of teachers ranked "importance to me as a teacher" higher than "emphasis given in the school" for the following item."ensuring effective administrative management" How would you interpret this result? •
188
Teacher (1) Yes well I suppose that we are not really interested in administration management, as long as everything is going effectively we are quite happy but we see that a lot of time is taken on these things. For the people in leadership its really important because if they didn't do it would run, but for us it not important. The emphasis should be on the children. Teacher (2) I think that admin management has quite an effect on schools if its not done well and I think the fact that teachers give it a lower emphasis means that it is probably is being done well and because its not impacting on them. Teacher (3) I think that ensuring effective admin management that they are not really worried about that. They want a better curriculum development in the school and the emphasis is right down on the ground floor with the children and I don't think that they see board, admin, ministry or paperwork as vital to getting that across to the students so I feel that we see the principals or management as putting more emphasis on it because they are busy with paper work rather than checking out what the kids are doing and how we can improve delivery to those children. Teacher (4) The teachers are saying what happens in the classroom is more important to them than perhaps what the admin is. Probably from where the teachers are coming from the teachers objective in their teaching is to accomplish child ongoing learning. Teacher (5) They rated it highly but felt that it was not being done as well as they would like to see it done. Perhaps it could be at a Ministry level because it's underfunded. Teachers have a busy workload and often there is not enough time to do the administration. Teachers (6) A system may be effective on paper but in practice there are too many things happening around it to make it not effective or the time is not there for people to be able to effectively do what is required or there is not enough or there is not enough people to share the load or whatever. Administration systems in particular systems can appear to be good but in actual fact they are not always, sadly. Teacher (7) Important so that everyone on the staff knows whats going on but then there are the times where there is a breakdown in communication between management and teachers and maybe administrative decisions that are being made which affect the whole staff and the decisions are made by management and teachers are not included and they feel that they should be. Teacher (8) No comment Teacher (9) It come back to size, I try to do my best in the day but me as a teacher! try to deal with the kids. The emphasis is not rated highly because I believe that there is an effective administration system in place already so I trust that that system is going to work so I would rank it lower and that's why I think that the results have shown that. Teacher (10) Once again I'm not really sure why there would be too much of a difference. I don't know. Teacher (11) In this school it's pretty effective to be honest. Looking back at prior teaching I think that what has to happen is that the principal has in constant overseeing of the administration management. I guess that a smooth office is something that all teachers want to see working and you hand something in and it gets done. I guess that its all time management and having enough administrative staff to cover. Teacher (12) Administrative management is really, really important and I think that communication between the staff and the principal is really really important, um I think that your understanding of admin management when you are just a beginning teacher, tour knowledge is really lacking in those areas until you grasp an understanding of the way it actually operates and I think that admin management is really really important and I would say that from my perspective from our school that the admin management is really, really sharp.
189
Teacher (13) I can only assume that the people that weighted it that way. There are a lot of schools where the administration management is not effective in running the school. Teacher (14) Maybe that's more of a funding type thing where there is not any money. Maybe to employ people to do more of that work therefor the teachers are probably doing more than what they should. Teacher (15) We are in teaching for the kids and the administration management is there to support us in our role. Its important to remember that because often there is not enough time for us to do the work we need to do with the kids because of the paper work we now have to do.
Q6: Over 83% of teachers responded "no" to the question "do you aspire to become a school Principal ?". Of the people who answered "no" to this question nearly two thirds gave as a reason "I believe that! could do the job as principal but becoming a principal is not part of my career plan." How would you explain this result?
Teacher (1) I can answer that one. Because principals have so much work to do. We see poor Sharon slaving away and there are far more people coming and complaining than there ever used to be. You get the complaints and it's so nice for the teachers to say. Go and talk to someone in charge. I could do the job as well as them but I don't want to do it! Teachers (2) I wouldn't be preparing to become a principal despite other people encouragement for me to do so. A couple of reasons for that. Already my job takes a large part of my life up so it's a very personal reason of wanting to have real balance in my professional and personal life and that would be harder to do as a principal. Also I kind of feel like our society doesn't support being a principal very well in terms of working for children an advocate for children which I think is becoming a big part of a principals job, the social and emotional needs of children are changing all the time and its impacting on learning more and more in time and, because it's a brick wall that you come up against when you try and help these kids I just think that I have the temperament to try and cope with that and I find it really, really challenging. Teacher (3) Becoming a principal is not in a lot of peoples plan because of that paper work thing and 1 think that possibly reflects on Q5 as they don't want to be seen as being in the office in administration when their interest is out there with programmes, units, works and exciting innovative ideas for teaching and they enjoy that and I feel that the job of principal is not a glorious job to most peoples eyes, I don't think that they get enough for what they do. Teacher (4) Probably people just don't want to take the responsibility nowadays, perhaps they don't have the right people skills and that there is a lack of opportunities to develop those leadership skills. People who often take on the principalship some of them have had the opportunity to learn the leadership skills in other positions. Perhaps the perception of being a principal doesn't fit with people philosophy. You know that you could do it but it's the paper side of it but you prefer the hands on side of it. Teacher (5) I think a lot of teachers are women and they have family responsibilities and a lot of them don't have the time and commitment to follow the career path that's involved in becoming a principal and men are a minority in teaching and can follow that career path through because to follow the career path through to principal would involve an awful lot of your personal time. Also people who are keen on teaching being a principal in this day and age takes you right out of the classroom. Teacher (6) Well he just left a principalship so I know why teachers don't aspire to be principals. I think that teachers do recognise that it is a big job and that it can be an incredibly stressful and challenging job. Teachers can reach the top of the scale and be paid reasonable money and say that for an extra few dollars I don't really want to be a principal, I don't actually want to have that extra stress in my life, I don't actually aspire to work from 7 in the morning to 7 at night trying to get things done, I don't want to have to go to board meetings. Teacher (7)
190
A lot of teachers believe that the responsibilities involved in becoming a principal is not reflected in the rewards they receive and although they have a high level of qualifications and are very able teachers they would be able to do the job but they don't want the responsibility as they see it taking over there lives. It's a time issue, they see the amount of time their principals put in and its frightening and basically they are not paid enough for the role. Teacher (8) No comment Teacher (9) What I didn't count on was marriage and my personal situation changed and children arrived on the scene and I still had the idea of management but you don't have the opportunity to get on to the middle management rung because older people have been there for years. If you are young and single and can move all over NZ then you have the opportunity but you do not get paid for all the hassles and all of the other rubbish that you have to put up with. Teacher (10) People might make a choice to be a teacher as a lifestyle choice and therefore have other interests that they put a lot of time into so they think that... they choose not to be a principal but they know that if they were a principal that they could do the job without the other interests. They might think that they are capable of doing the principals job because we all have a thought of what it actually is, but when you get there to actually do it. Maybe they just haven't got the ambition to be a principal. Teacher (11) That's an interesting question and I quite enjoyed that one. I guess what that means is that a lot of teachers want to aspire to do the best at their job and if a principal job came up, sure they might take it. Others perhaps might be looking at going overseas but yeah me being such a young fellow it will be a few more years before I have he experience to be a principal. It's a lot more commitment I guess and a lot more pressure for one person in running a school. Teacher (12) These days being in the role as a administrator in the school and being in the principal role that there is so much paperwork being involved in that I believe that you end up being distanced away from teaching children and that your role is actually detached and that's the reason why I went into education because as a young teacher your there to be there for the kids and for the interest and the benefit of the kids where as in the principal role your more after being a manager of a school rather than having direct contact with children and I think that balance is lost. Teacher (13) From a personal point of view and having been in a GI position I know that my most enjoyable teaching has been at scale A and I'm personally not interested in the pressures and stresses involved and spreading my self so thinly including management. I can only assume that other people feel the same way. Teacher (14) I think that one of the main reasons is the responsibility thing, nowadays dealing with a lot more social type problems as well.. Just the extra responsibility thing. Teacher (15) Principals don't get paid enough for what they do and they are always hassled by everyone. I enjoy the kids and my job is busy enough and I don't want the extra responsibility of all the meetings and the paper work. Teachers see principals doing the work and the pressure that they are under and decide that it not for them because there is no balance or personal life in the job.
191
APPENDIX J
Semi-Structured Follow-Up Interview Data: Senior Teachers
192
SEMI- STRUCTURED INTERVIEW SCHEDULE - SENIOR TEACHERS
Questions
Ql: From your experience as a senior teacher, what do you think teachers want from their school leadership?
Teacher (1) Teachers want a facilitator in terms of problem solving, I think they want direction in terms of curriculum and in terms of dealing with children, the needs of children, behaviour and learning, dealing with parents. They want somebody who is going to back them in the difficult time and its important that they feel that you will back them with a parent and that if there are any discrepancies that it is discussed at a different time. Nobody wants to be left to 'hung out to dry'. They need to feel secure that the leadership in the school will back them in any difficult situations. I think that they want guidance in new initiatives that come from the government or the management of the school. Teacher (2) They want some strong person with good communication at the head of the team. They want guidance and direction from those people at the top, they should be able to communicate clearly their ideas and where they want their vision for the school. They also want somebody who has got good sound knowledge of pedagogy in teaching Our principal gets in their and gives us feedback and feed forward, yes and just to have a vision too. A shared vision. Teacher (3) I think that they want to be supported and given direction as well. The whole point of having a senior teacher is to have someone who can perhaps guide and lead so that I think that teachers in a syndicate are perhaps looking for some one who can help make decisions. I think they also like to have somebody above them who is perhaps more experience and who has quite a lot of depth in curriculum. Teacher (4) They just want people who are well organised and a school that has clear goals and intentions and people who can help them in their role and people who are reasonably practical who have a good communication with parents and children. Teacher (5) They want direction, they want support and they want experience to improve the quality of their own teaching. Teacher (6) They are wanting reassurance, reassurance that they are on the right track. They are wanting guidance through ensuring that they are following pathways, and that all their planning is right. A bit of innovation, to be given the freedom to use ideas and to use new ideas that have been fed to them as well. Teacher (7) I think probably support, someone to talk to, someone to run through ideas and in some situations the professional development side of it but we probably all share that in our syndicates. Think mainly confirmation that what the teacher is doing is right. Teacher (8) I think that they want guidance and support, guidance In the area of planning particularly with curriculum and they want guidance on how to use school systems and processes that are in place, they want support in terms of their class programme, how to handle difficult kids and how to get through their day.
Teacher (9) Firstly they want leadership not a vacuum or a wishy washy on again off again type of leadership. They want clear lines of leadership. They want leadership that is professional, collegial, where all are treated with respect and equality, where the opinions of the younger teachers are listened to and considered. An atmosphere of openness where it is okay to express comment. Teachers want to know that they will be supported by the leadership during difficult times with parents, children and BOT. Loyalty expected in the leadership and offered in return.
193
Teacher (10) They want to be given some direction and guidance but also be able to have freedom within set parameters to experiment with teaching styles. They want to know that they are supported by the leadership in difficult times with parents and students and the leadership of the school will be there to support them in these times.
Q2: How do you perceive school leadership affecting the role of the classroom teacher?
Teacher (1) I think that the leadership can play a huge role in the life of the classroom teacher, it can be the difference between the classroom teacher having to battle away on their own or getting the support that they need to constantly improve what they are doing and being able to deal with the tough times. We all know that teaching is stressful and having a team around you that are supportive, even if the stress is coming from a personal situation is really important. Teacher (2) I think its like huge! The leadership has to be strong.... If they are not there the effectiveness of your classroom is not going to be to the same high standard, strong leaders make strong school. Leading by example and being valuable role models is perhaps the most important thing. Helping to make the classroom teacher more effective by removing some of the paperwork and I think as leaders we have to try and make the role manageable for classroom teachers. Teacher (3) I think that the leadership can affect the role of the classroom teacher by however prescriptive the school system and the leadership that has put those system into place, that's probably the thing that has the impact into the role of the classroom teacher in terms of how far may or may not go in delivery or when they want to do things. Teacher (4) I think that the leaders have to provide a frameworks to make their jobs easier so that there is not an overburden on planning and assessment, structures have to be in place in the school so that everything that you are doing is worthwhile and that you are doing it for a reason. Teacher (5) School leadership affects the role of the teachers because of your organisation structures and the way that those structures affects what you need to be teaching in your classroom to give you guidance on what you need to be covering and what the school and parents values as being important in a collective picture. Teacher (6) If they are comfortable with what they are doing and if they know that they are on the right track they will be happy within their role as a teacher, they will be comfortable with what they are teaching, they will know that they are filling requirements. Teacher (7) Again I think it a team situation where you are there for support and you are developing a whole group working towards some kind of goal and with the togetherness you will try new things just like the children do. Teacher (8) If a classroom teacher is well supported they will be confident in their approach to teaching and they will feel that they are coping and that they are managing to do what they are setting out to do as a teacher. If they are not supported by school leadership they will feel as if they are out on a limb and that they are tackling the world on there own. Teacher (9) School leadership needs that there is a two way communication, respect, appreciation with and of classroom teachers, they want leadership to be interested in their classroom programmes but a constant overbearing presence, a license to experiment and implement different styles of learning within the accepted guidelines of the school policy and within a clear framework. Also a recognition of and understanding of strengths and weaknesses. Teacher (10) Its important that the leadership of the school understands that their role is very important in supporting the classroom teacher and that the leadership of the school is central in creating and maintaining a supportive climate that the teachers work in. If the teachers feel happy in their school environment and supported by the leadership it shows in what they are doing and how they do it.
194
Q3: From your experience how would you describe teachers' involvement in school decision-making?
Teacher (1) I think that teachers involvement in SDM is a really tricky thing. I think that its important for teachers feel involved however there also needs to be a point from the leaders point of view where a conclusion has to drawn and a decision has to be made. Where there are two sides battling away ultimately that's the role of the leadership in the school to make a decision that they think is best. Teacher (2) From school to school it is different. As lye moved, the last 3 schools that lye worked in teachers have had a huge involvement in DM. I think its important that teachers have their say, and quite often as a leader you have an idea where you are going to take things but you have to get the grass roots support and get their input and take it from there. Id say as a teacher that teachers involvement in DM has been huge in the last 3 schools that lye worked in. Teacher (3) Teachers in this school are very involved in DM. Big picture and other things are bought to staff arena and there is a high degree of collaboration and decision-making. Teacher (4) They have an opportunity at our school to be involved in DM but because we are so large its difficult to have a contrasting view that may not be the one others share. Sometimes teachers feel that their view has not been heard. Some people might perceive it this way. Teacher (5) Very very important that the whole school is involved in collective decision-making that everyone's view is accounted for and decisions are made from that point. Teacher (6) A lot of it varies according to the decision that has to be made. I realise that there are places where in our situation the principals decision is final but of course there is generally negotiation. Teacher (7) We all have the opportunity. People are actually asked to contribute and then once the decision is made there is that pulling together and supporting our decision. Teacher (8) Generally speaking teachers are involved in a lot of DM, sometimes its advantageous because they feel that they are being consulted and asked and that they have a say in various things in the school, at other times its difficult because if there are a large number of teachers involved its hard to reach a conclusion and you can spend a lot of time discussing it and at the end you don't know what has been decided. Teacher (9) Teacher involvement is most effective in a bottom up model. Staff meetings are the least effective and most effective are the ideas coming from syndicate or team meetings.. .these are then taken back for forum discussion and fine-tuning. Acknowledgment must be given for input and ideas proffered must be credited to the source. Where delegation or responsibility for a task is given then the teacher should be allowed to action it in his or her own style. Teachers like to be consulted, informed, given responsibilities and involved in decision-making. Teacher (10) Teachers now have a lot of involvement in SDM and the opportunity is there for them to provide their input. They now have far more involvement than what used to be the case but there is far more administration in the process of this with extra meetings and consultation.
Q4: School based- management has been operating since 1988 in New Zealand. What do you consider to be the positives of school based-management?
Teacher (1) I think that the positive as a whole is that the community knows a lot more about what goes on in schools. Id like to say that it's made them more positive about what goes on in schools but I don't know that it has. I also think that it allows diversity in the community to be better handled. Those barriers of ignorance have broken down.
195
Teacher (2) The community is more involved. lye been on a BOT and I can see the difference in the Governance and management roles. You can use your funding to develop priority areas. As a parent I think that the opportunity to have a role in their children's education is great. As a parent it's huge and also you can target areas of need. Teacher (3) That people can have more ownership over the things that they have been requested to do. You can have control over what you are doing and why you are doing it. Teacher (4) Being able to control and write your own programme and being able to deliver the curriculum based on the needs of your own community and children's needs and being able to utilise your own money to but the things that you need as a school. Teacher (5) That SBM is completely reflective of the communities needs and wants so that the children are actually being taught to the needs of families and the communities around them. Teacher (6) Ownership of programmes. Ownership in general. Teacher (7) The togetherness and that everybody is working towards the same goals. We are all involved in the decision so we are all going to go the same way. Teacher (8) The positives are that teachers have more support under SBM than under the old system, teachers certainly feel that they are involved in school life at a more personal level perhaps. Teacher (9) The opportunity to respond to local needs both in curriculum content and in management style and the increased parental and local community involvement. Also the increased freedom to create a point of difference in your school and to be innovative. Teacher (10) That the community is involved in the life of the school and that parents have the opportunity to play an active role in school affairs through being on the school boards and through having an input into the decisions which affect their children.
Q5: What do you consider to be the negatives of school based -management?
Teacher (1) The negatives of SBM, I think that it has bought a greater level of inequality to school, I think that it has helped wealthy schools in wealthy areas get more wealthy it can a huge difference if you have somebody on you board of trustees that can make wise investments for your school in comparison to a BOT that does not have those skills. Having parents on a board can lead top personal clashes which may not have happened previously and judgements can become clouded. The management of resouces and the allocation of resources can also become challenging. Teacher (2) I think that the funding that we get from the Ministry does not take us where we want to go, we are a very high performing school and we are always reviewing things and identifying where we want to go and often we cant go there because of the resources available to us. Teacher (3) You are asking lay people to come in and interpret the education act and all the policies and decisions that are connected with that and I think that is a big ask of parents who are generally tend to be involved with their own family and businesses and jobs, they tend to be the same people and that's a huge ask. The fact that nothing is standardised and every body has to make up their own thing. It's ok if you are in a high decile school where your parents are capable but if you are not then you are struggling. Teacher (4)
There is lot of reinventing the wheel in terms of policies and procedures in terms of school charters and things like that. Right down to units plans. There between 30,000 to 40,000 teachers in NZ and every week we are writing that should be shared a lot more and schools have to have individualised policies where there could be a set of policies
196
out where maybe all you have to do is alter 3 or 4 points. Schools are doing a lot of things that central Govt did yet there is no more time or money to do it. Teacher (5) I guess the same perception that lots of people would have throughout NZ that perhaps the expertise and knowledge that is actually needed to run an effective school may not be given by the community members. Teacher (6) I Think that a lot of it has been rectified, I think that a lot of it was too open ended, curriculum delivery probably. There were too many alternatives and then we were squashed in and we were given leeway and that leeway was taken away... there was a lot of variation, we did not know what was expected, now curriculum documents have been defined, in some ways we were wanting more guidance in curriculum areas. Teacher (7) I don't think that there are too many but there are some times when I think lets just make a decision now and get on with it. Teacher (8) Sometimes things can get personal rather than dealing with the issues and also some times issues are talked around and around for a long period of time before a decision can be made but I guess that depends on the style of leadership especially if a principal goes in and says that we want a decision on this today. Teacher (9) Probably the opposite of Q4. Too much community / parental involvement and the competition between schools in local areas. Teacher (10) The biggest negative that I can think of with respect to this question is that while the freedom is there to make decisions and to have input, the money is not there for the resourcing of the school.
Q6: Do the positives of school-based management outweigh the negatives? Yes / Equal / No (Would you please expand on your response).
Teacher (1) Id have to say no, not a strong no but it would fall on the no side for the reasons mentioned and all the small things that schools now have to take responsibility for like maintenance of buildings. Teacher (2) Yes mainly because you are putting more control in the hands of the comminity and that has to be a positive for us. You know your parents and your community. The only negative that I can see is the resourcing from the top. Teacher (3) No I don't think they do, I think that there is too much weighting towards the negative aspects for principals and BOT. A lot of things could be standardised. They could easily do that if they chose to, this concept of everybody having ownership of things, I don't really agree with it in all respects. Teacher (4) I think yes because of flexibility and because you can meet the needs of your community and because you are not so rigidly structured. It depends on how good your board is ,how good your staff are, how big your school is. In our situation it's a yes, but if you were teaching in a low decile area it would be different. Teacher (5) That's tricky. I would say that its equal but I would say that perhaps my perception of that is distorted because I have never been in an environment where the negatives would outweigh the positives, I guess you have to base it on your personal experience. Teacher (6) Yes definitely, because of ownership you can work through those negatives. There is too much responsibity on BOT. They are not interested in curriculum issues but we are. They are not equipped to deal with that responsibility and that's a negative but it can be worked through. But yes the positives do outweigh the negatives. Teacher (7) Definitely Yes, going in the one direction as I said before and supporting each other. Teacher (8) Im not sure, Id have to say equal, because I could not say definitely yes or definitely no as Im uncertain on that one.
197
Teacher (9) - Positives outweigh the negatives yes but the leadership and management style is much more difficult to get right. Its now very transparent and leadership is operating right in the face of its consumers / clients as there is no anonymous Education Board in between. Teacher (10) Definitely a yes. The community has the opportunity to be involved in their childrens education and the opportunity to make local decisions and to implement things the way that they would like to and to respond to local needs.
198